The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles made a written oath with C on July 6, 2010 that the Defendant does not raise any civil or criminal objection with respect to B, 2, and other monetary issues, and liquidated the relationship between B’s claims and obligations. E was present in the lawsuit claiming the return of loans against C (hereinafter “instant civil lawsuit”) and made a false statement as if the Defendant had any obligation to C, thereby filing a complaint for perjury, and there was no intention to refuse E.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, a report in a mistake of facts refers to a report that is false or a false report is made without conviction that the reported fact is true. Thus, even if the report is inconsistent with objective facts, if the report is confirmed and reported as true, the crime of false accusation is not established. Here, the conviction as true refers to the absence of dolusence in the perception that the reported fact is likely to be false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do99, Sept. 27, 198). 2) Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had

Therefore, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. As the Defendant was unable to pay wages to employees around September 2009 while operating a gas station, C did not make wages by embezzlement. At that time, E, who was an employee of the gas station, was investigating the embezzlement of C, and confirmed the account book of the gas station.