All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles submitted by Defendant E to the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office and the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (Evidence No. 10 of the evidence record; hereinafter “the registration certificate of this case”), it is clear that the registration certificate of this case is a forged document, taking account of the following: (a) the receipt of the Seoul Central District Court Yang Pyeong-gun V is stamped on April 22, 1974; (b) there is no record of obtaining authorization from the head of the competent district court on or before April 1974; (c) there is no record of obtaining the authorization from the head of the competent district court on or before U; (d) the seller’s seal imprint is affixed on the sale certificate attached to the above registration certificate; (e) the seller’s seal imprint is affixed on the sales certificate attached to the above registration certificate; but (e) the column for filing the resident registration card of D

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the above certificate of registration right is a true document is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

In order for a crime of false accusation to be established, it is conclusive or dolusently aware that the reported fact goes against objective facts, and the defendant has no intention to report false facts to the defendant, on April 22, 1974, because the defendant believed that U.S. had no office in Gyeonggi-gun V on April 22, 1974, and the remaining certificate of registration right of this case was forged.

Considering all the circumstances, such as the fact that the prosecutor (unfairness) can have the power to commit the same kind of crime against the defendant, and that the defendant continues to and repeatedly bullying E without his fault, the sentence imposed by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unfair.

Judgment

The first argument on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is examined, the witness E's legal statement, investigation report, and the Seoul Western Prosecutor's 2009 type No. 1161.