The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On December 23, 2013, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with respect to D through her husband C at the Yananbuk-gu Police Station located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 174-1, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 174-1, and submitted it to the police officer in charge of civil petition.

A written complaint states that “Defendant D, a U.S.I.D., committed a forgery and use of an application form for change of device/USIM in the name of the complainant without the complainant’s permission while opening a mobile phone from the Defendant’s mobile phone agent “F” located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon on October 4, 201.”

However, since D received a request from the Defendant for opening of a mobile phone and received a delegation from the Defendant for the preparation of documents for opening of a mobile phone, it was difficult to use the said documents by forging the above documents on the ground that D entered into an application for changing the device/USIM, or the contract for opening a short time.

In this respect, the defendant made D's accusation for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

2. Determination

A. The crime of false accusation is established when another 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.

The report of false facts here refers to a conclusive or dolusent recognition and report that the reported fact goes against objective facts.

Even if the fact of accusation is false contrary to objective facts, if there is no awareness of such falsity, the intention of accusation cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do822, Nov. 24, 200). B. The following facts can be acknowledged based on the record of the facts found.

1) On December 23, 2013, the Defendant submitted a letter of complaint as stated in the facts charged to the Western Northern Police Station.

The complaint submitted by the defendant was confirmed that the contract was forged while the telephone was exchanged and used on September 201.