The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the two years each from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B received specific information from M that “G education center embezzled lecture fees for Lone Star education.”

The Defendant reported to Defendant A, and the Defendants recognized the above information of M as an objective fact and trusted it to the instant complaint. It was true that part of the lecture fees of G Bata Education, such as the instant complaint, embezzled money in the name of the purchase cost of coffee, and then, the content of M’s information at the time is false.

Since there was no circumstance that Defendant B’s report was false or doubtful, so the Defendants did not recognize that the contents of the instant complaint can be false, so the Defendants did not have any willful negligence with respect to the Defendants. However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. In light of the various circumstances of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the court of original instance, and the lower court’s detailed statement on the “determination of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion” in the part on the “determination of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion” appears to be a clerical error in the 7th page 4 of the lower judgment.

After doing so, the Defendants’ complaint rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds that it was false against objective truth, and that the Defendants could be aware that the contents of the complaint were false facts, or that at least there was no conviction that it was true, so it could sufficiently recognize the Defendants’ willful negligence.

2) In the crime of false accusation, the criminal intent does not necessarily require it to be a conclusive intention, and is also sufficient for dolusence.