The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no intention to mislead the defendant of the mistake of facts and legal principles, or to have the victim be subject to criminal punishment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated as follows, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant and C, namely, the background leading up to entering the telecom, approximately four hours of stay in the telecom, the conduct and dialogue within the telecom, the contents of telephone conversations between the Defendant and her husband, and the Defendant’s actions to cope with them.

Even if the judgment ability is lost, it cannot be deemed that C enters the telecom with C’s forced execution, and the circumstance is also memoryed as well, but it seems to be false and genuine. Therefore, the defendant has a criminal intention without accusation.

The decision was determined.

2) The criminal intent in the relevant legal doctrine is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and it is sufficiently sufficient to do so. Therefore, it is unnecessary to establish a crime of false accusation by reporting the fact that the reporting person is not true, and to ensure that the reported fact is false.

“Purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary punishment” in a false report is sufficient when there is a perception that another person would be subject to criminal or disciplinary punishment due to such false report, and it does not require that a result would have occurred. As long as the defendant submitted a written complaint to an investigation agency, such recognition should have been made (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4642, May 25, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the court below and the court below duly adopted and examined the written evidence.