The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had C keep the check number E, including the check number E and the check number (hereinafter “the check number E”) in relation to the acquisition by transfer (hereinafter “instant company”). However, D did not allow D to use the check number before acquiring the instant company, and did not grant C the authority to issue the check number.

Therefore, although the contents of the defendant's complaint are not false, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as a crime of false accusation is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the judgment.

The defense counsel appointed by the defendant after the expiration of the grounds for appeal shall be examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court, stated to the effect that “C reported the instant discount on the number of shares,” i.e., (a) the Defendant stated to the effect that “C requested a discount on a promissory note, a discount on a number of shares per unit, since it was difficult to settle the Promissory note and the current number of shares at the time,” and (b) the Defendant stated to the effect that “C requested a discount on a number of shares per unit,” and (c) the Defendant ordered G operating H to place an order of KRW 56,620,80 for a total of KRW 56,620,00, such as yellowdo, Do, Do, and Do, Do, and Do, etc. at February 29, 2016, issued a promissory note equivalent to the same amount (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant’s account at the time of the issuance of the instant number of shares, regardless of the fact that the KRW 30,000 was known or not deposited.