The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal of this case can be recognized as territorial jurisdiction against the defendant at the time of the prosecution of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of violation of jurisdiction.

2. Determination

A. First, according to the records of this case, we examine the existence of territorial jurisdiction over the defendant of this court. ① The place where the defendant prepared a false complaint against D, the defendant of this case, is the office of law firm Korea located in the second floor of Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the place where the defendant submitted the above complaint is the public service center of Seoul Gangseo-gu, Seoul Northern Police Station located in 406, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. ② The address, residence or present location of the defendant at the time of prosecution. ② The above place is the "H in Gangnam-gu, Seoul." The above place does not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the territorial jurisdiction of this case exists in this court.

B. Furthermore, this paper examined whether the Defendant’s application for violation of jurisdiction under Article 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act was made.

On May 10, 2013, prior to the first trial date of the lower court, the Defendant’s defense counsel presented an application for transfer of the case along with an abstract of resident registration record cards, pointing out that the Defendant’s being tried in Daegu was extremely unfavorable to time and cost, and subsequently, on May 20, 2013, prior to the first trial date, the lower court ordered the Defendant’s defense counsel to express his opinion as to whether the Defendant’s application for transfer was included in the application for violation of jurisdiction. At the same time, the lower court ordered the prosecutor to present legal and private records that the court has jurisdiction over the instant case, and the Defendant’s defense counsel included the Defendant’s request for transfer on May 30, 2013.

However, according to the purport of Article 8 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the territorial jurisdiction over the original defendant is over.