The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the statements of D, I, and M, especially the major parties concerned, were consistent in light of the overall purport, and even if the facts charged in this case were fully recognized, the court below acquitted the facts and acquitted.

2. Determination

A. On February 12, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint for embezzlement, etc. with the public service center of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dobong Police Station 17 Dong-dong, Dobong-gu, Seoul.

The details of the complaint are as follows: “Around December 21, 2012, D engages in the brokerage of the purchase and sale of E building 302, and the actual purchase and sale price is KRW 82,00,000,000,000,000,000 from the complainant (Defendant) and embezzled KRW 3,000,000,000,000, which is the difference between D, with the false statement that the purchase and sale price is KRW 85,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00 won.”

However, in fact, the fact that the purchase price of the E-building 302 was 82 million won was known to the Defendant, and D did not arbitrarily prepare a contract for the purchase price of KRW 82 million for the purchase price. The contract for the purchase and sale of KRW 85 million was prepared by the Defendant to obtain a bank loan, and KRW 1.3 million acquired by D was merely repaid the Defendant with the loan of KRW 1.3 million. Accordingly, the Defendant’s complaint was all false.

As above, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the Dobong Police Station, which is the investigative authority, for the purpose of having D criminal punishment, with the intent of having D file the complaint with the investigative authority for false facts.

B. The lower court’s judgment recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the record.