The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the content of the instant complaint that the Defendant forged the agreement by allowing the F to affix a seal to the agreement is consistent with the objective truth, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of false accusation against the Defendant, since the content of the instant complaint that the E forged the agreement is consistent with the objective truth.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. On June 4, 2012, the lower court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, in the police and the lower court court’s court’s court, G, a police officer in charge of both the Defendant and F, asked the Defendant whether the Defendant was punished upon an agreement with the other party (F) via telephone during the investigation process. On June 4, 2012, after sending the Defendant and F to the prosecutor’s office with the prosecution’s opinion, the Defendant was called to receive an agreement with F to the government prosecutor’s office. However, the Defendant did not receive a written agreement with the police station due to the lack of body.

On June 6, 2012, the defendant and F simultaneously submitted an excessive agreement to the police station on June 6, 2012, and they stated that the defendant was able to compromise with the defendant, which led the defendant, and that the defendant was able to give a bad faith while well-known to the defendant; ② The apartment management manager, in the police court and the court of the court below, after receiving the request from the defendant on June 5, 2012, he prepared an agreement with the F with the defendant on a computer form, printed out the agreement with the defendant on a computer form (the 19 pages of the evidence record) and then received a seal and affixed a seal to the agreement, and thereafter, he is stated to the effect that the statement by the accounting officer is consistent with the above, and that E, which is not the direct party to the injured case, has forged the agreement.