[1] False facts in a false accusation

[2] The case that reversed the judgment of the court below concerning the crime of false accusation

[1] In the crime of false accusation, the reported facts must have the risk that the other party may be subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary action. Even if some of the reported facts contain any content contrary to objective truth, if it is not independently subject to criminal punishment, etc., but merely exaggeration the circumstances of reported facts, or if it is related to contents which are not directly affected by the existence of a false fact, as a whole, in view of the existence of a false fact, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of false accusation.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was a violation of the law of incomplete hearing and documentary evidence

[1] Article 156 of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [2] Article 156 of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do556 delivered on September 23, 1986 (Gong1986, 2993), Supreme Court Decision 90Do1706 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 128), Supreme Court Decision 92Do1799 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3193), Supreme Court Decision 93Do295 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong194, 748)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 94No265 delivered on January 13, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

1. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the gist of the facts charged as to the non-indicted on December 6, 190 of this case's order is that the non-indicted is the defendant, and the non-indicted is the defendant, the non-indicted is the owner of the land of this case, and the non-indicted is the owner of the non-indicted, who is constructed on the land of this case without any limit to the maximum debt amount of 29 million won, and all facilities, including money, houses, warehouses, etc., owned by the non-indicted, which are constructed on the ground of this case's land are also the owner of superficies of the above company, and if it is found that the above act of the defendant was illegal, the defendant was punished. Despite the truth of the contents of the above written application submitted by the non-indicted, the non-indicted is the owner of the above land of this case, and the establishment of superficies for the purpose of the establishment of the non-indicted party's neighboring building and the establishment of superficies for the non-indicted 1 is the right of the defendant's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2 police station.

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the non-indicted on this part, on the ground that the non-indicted submitted a written complaint to the non-indicted to the defendant by submitting the written application containing false facts, and thus, submitted the written complaint to punish the defendant.

However, the crime of false accusation is established only when a person reports false facts to a public office or a public official for the purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary punishment imposed upon another person. In addition, the crime of false accusation is not established when a person reports false facts to the public office or a public official for the purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary punishment. Even if some of the reported facts are included in the reported facts against the objective truth, if it is not subject to criminal punishment, etc. independently, and it is merely an exaggeration of reported facts, or it is related to the contents that are not directly affected on the part of the criminal facts, considering the existence of a false fact as a whole, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of false accusation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2995 delivered on January 11, 194).

According to the records, the contents of the above written application or the contents of the complaint of this case submitted by the above non-indicted 2 to the Kananan Police Station are as shown in the above facts charged. Although the defendant had no doubt with the non-indicted 2 on the land of this case, even though he did not use the above building or have legal restrictions on the exercise of rights such as ownership on the land of this case, it does not appear that the non-indicted 2 used the above building or was subject to the above legal restrictions on the exercise of rights such as ownership. Further, since there is no evidence showing any factual restriction, the above written application submitted by the non-indicted 2 did not contain any contents that can be punished against the defendant even if it was true. The contents of the complaint of this case raised by the defendant were not about the act as argued by the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2 reported the facts that the defendant had committed such act, and therefore, even if the defendant did not have such act, it is not justified to deem that the defendant's act of violation and the right of this case was not infringed.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the grounds as stated in its holding that it committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by violating the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the summary of the facts charged as to the defendant's non-indicted 6th October 1989 is that the defendant, who had already carried out livestock farming and carried out mass farming business on the land of this case, which is the defendant's possession, recommended the non-indicted 1, who is his wife, to carry out fish farming business together, and even though the defendant's own construction of ground reorganization work, such as transplanting away trees planted at a place for the purpose of new construction of livestock pens, the non-indicted 6's criminal punishment on October 6, 1989, "the non-indicted 1, who was the defendant's wife, was not guilty on the above ground of 6th day of July 1987, 197, the non-indicted 6's 130 weeks away from the above fact that the non-indicted 1, who was the defendant's 6th day of 1,000 son, was not guilty, and the defendant did not have any criminal liability on the non-indicted 1's own 7th day of the above fact.

However, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant's complaint of this case did not arbitrarily damage the part-time trees of this case, but rather, that the defendant filed a complaint for cutting down the part-time trees and compensating for the damages under the agreement with the defendant, which did not constitute a criminal offense, is not easily acceptable.

First, according to the statement on the complaint of this case submitted by the defendant without the police station, the defendant's 20 years old 70 square meters old 2,50 square meters old 2,00, and he borrowed 130 percent old 6 years old 2,00 old 2,00 old 2,00 old 2,00 old 3, and 7 years old 7 years old 6,000 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 7,00 old 1,00 old 6, which was reported by the defendant to the effect that "the above 6,00 old 3,00 old 2,00 old 3,00 old 3,00 old 3,000 old 3,00 old 7,00 old 3,00.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether the non-indicted was punished for the instant single tree without permission of the defendant, namely, whether the above fact of accusation was true or false, but it should not be deemed that the court below committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, or committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, or committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the rules of evidence, which affected the remaining judgment. The prosecutor's ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)