The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The witness of the misunderstanding D was F. The witness of the lower court was not present at the time D used to assault the Defendant.

Therefore, although there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant filed a false complaint against D, even though D did not assault the Defendant.

① The Defendant, at the police station, went out of the police station, was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s wife C and D, and D assaulted the Defendant on the rooftop, and stated that D was frighted to leave the house and left the house thereafter.

In the prosecution, the defendant was inside and outside of 502 E, and D used the defendant to commit assault before D’s streke in a dispute with C, and he was found to have been on the rooftop after D’s streke, and there was a police officer since D used tobacco on the rooftop.

was stated.

According to the statement made by each investigation agency of the defendant, the defendant was assaulted by D before D was set off. In that case, the defendant's assertion that E did not work at the site of E is inconsistent with the defendant's existing statement.

② E opened a rooftop door, D was allowed to go out of the rooftop, and thereafter, D and C continued to dispute, and D went out to the entrance of the lower floor of the building. By that time, the Defendant came out of the house.