The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the Reasons for Appeal (De facto error) is re-entrusted to D with three halfs (one halfs token, one halfs to be raised, one halfs to be raised, and one halfs to be raised) to be sold by F. However, D did not have paid the sales proceeds or returned to the Defendant.

In addition, G or H, which was entrusted with the sale of emerals by D or the Defendant, did not have returned to the Defendant the emerals or paid the sales proceeds.

Therefore, since the testimony of D, such as the statement in the facts charged, is not consistent with objective facts, and it constitutes perjury, the defendant's complaint does not constitute a false accusation, and the defendant did not have intention to make a false accusation. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below which found the guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law of mistake as alleged by the defendant, in light of the following points, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below.

1) Perjury is established by a statement that goes against a witness’s memory taken an oath under the law. Thus, even if such statement is inconsistent with objective facts, it cannot be readily concluded that it is perjury before examining whether it goes against the witness’s memory (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630, Mar. 27, 2014). Therefore, in the instant case where a defendant files a complaint for perjury, whether the testimony conforms to objective facts, not only is it conforms to D’s testimony, but also whether the defendant filed a complaint for perjury with the knowledge that D did not make a statement contrary to his/her memory.