The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize that the defendant filed a false report to C with the same content, even though there is no fact that the defendant has been lower aluminium than aluminium, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the facts

2. Determination

A. On June 24, 2012, at around 23:30 on June 24, 2012, the Defendant filed a false report with the purport that C was at the point of view that C was at least once a restaurant table in the H restaurant located in G, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and that C was at the point of view of the face of his/her face in the E zone in the Kim Sea Police Station located in D, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, on June 24, 2012.

However, there was no fact against C.

As above, the Defendant reported false facts to public officials for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment.

B. We examine the judgment of the court below. The main evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case lies in C's police investigation.

In other words, C stated, in the police investigation, that “at the time, it was true that the Defendant was in a restaurant, but the Defendant was able to report her own. At the time, the Defendant was drinking with women at the time, and there was no fact that the Defendant was in a far away from her own.”

(No. 16, 17, and 27 of the Investigation Records). However, in this Court, I, at the time, she had drinking together with the Defendant at the time, stated in this Court that “I, while the Defendant and C were in conflict with each other, she was faced with the Defendant. At the time, the Defendant did not go beyond the floor or did not go out of the floor,” and ② The J, which is the above He restaurant operator, stated in this Court at the time.