The first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense, inasmuch as the Defendant first assaults the Defendant, and the Defendant only assaults the victim during the process of defending and defending the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

In addition, the court below's punishment (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Since the contents of the complaint that the defendant was assaulted by the victim against the judgment of the third court, it cannot be deemed that the defendant reported false facts.

Even if not,

Even if it is true that the defendant and the victim claimed the same fact, it does not constitute a report of false facts even if the defendant neglected the circumstance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's crime of false accusation is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

In addition, the punishment of the court below (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, probation and social service) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (200,000 won of a fine) at the second judgment of the public prosecutor is unreasonable as it is too unfilled.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the court of second instance were sentenced to a fine; the court of second instance sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment; the defendant appealed with respect to the judgment of the court of first and third instances; the prosecutor appealed with respect to the judgment of the court of second instance; and the arguments in each appeal case against all the above judgment of the court of first instance were combined.

Therefore, each of the crimes in the first and second original judgments, which were sentenced to the same kind of punishment against the defendant, is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first and second original judgments cannot be maintained.

However, despite these reasons for reversal, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the first judgment.