The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have any seal affixed to the instant real estate sale contract, and C and D forged the said sale contract. Thus, the Defendant did not file a false complaint against C and D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of a false accusation against the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court, the Defendant, despite the fact that D or C had obtained a certificate of seal imprint for the preparation of the instant real estate transaction agreement, submitted a false statement of the fact that D or C had provided the said real estate transaction agreement without authority, thereby making D or C free of charge.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The instant real estate transaction agreement has the Defendant’s seal affixed to the Defendant’s seal, and the Defendant issued D or C a certificate of personal seal impression indicating the name, resident registration number, and domicile and an abstract of resident registration, etc. on December 4, 2008, to the real estate purchaser column.

2) The Defendant asserts that the application for land expropriation compensation is only a fact that delegated the duties to C and issued a certificate of seal impression. However, it is not inconsistent with the contents stated in the above certificate of seal imprint, and in light of the fact-finding inquiry of related civil cases (former District Court 2014Na 9338), the following market replys to the effect that, according to the fact-finding inquiry of the documents submitted at the time of the application for expropriation compensation, the following market paid compensation after concluding a contract directly with the Defendant as the owner on the register around 2008.