The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the victim D's statements and the witness F, G, H, and I's statements are consistent and consistent with each other, and their credibility may be recognized. In full view of each of the above statements, even if the defendant did not have an assault from D, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant reported false facts and made a false accusation against D. Thus, the judgment of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant was unable to receive retirement pay by leaving the company “C”, a company for which the Defendant was working, on the ground of infertility with D, etc., which is a place of work, and the Defendant was unable to receive retirement pay. On the other hand, the Defendant was willing to file a false complaint against D with an injury crime.

Around June 5, 2013, the Defendant drafted a written complaint with the public service center of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Police Station, which had been located in Isedong-dong, stating that “Around March 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) using a test-fluorial pen in the form of the accusation, Defendant D, who was the Defendant’s wife, was unable to identify the treatment period due to the Defendant’s injury when she was laid off with the Defendant’s arm’s body at the work site located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and would be punished and changed.”

However, there was no fact that D, at the date and time stated in the complaint, there was no injury to the defendant by putting the parts of the defendant's arm's length or drinking at the place of the complaint.

Nevertheless, on June 5, 2013, the defendant submitted a false complaint to the police officer who is unable to know his name at the public service center of the Seodaemun-gu Police Station.

In this respect, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

B. The lower court’s judgment is reasonable in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and there is room for doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone reported false facts to the Defendant.