The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, E, F’s statement, and content of the instant explanatory note, it cannot be deemed that E has forged the instant explanatory note, and therefore, even if the Defendant could be deemed to have made a false accusation, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The Defendant of the instant facts charged was working for D in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and, in the process of filing an application for additional medical care on August 201, 201, the facts were changed and requested by the D representative director E to prepare a statement of particulars instead of the statement of particulars, and the Defendant’s fingerprints was confirmed and sealed. However, upon dismissal around March 2012, E submitted a written statement of particulars to the investigation agency as if E forged it and submitted it to the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

On August 8, 2012, the Defendant prepared a false complaint and submitted it to the Ulsan East-dong Police Station located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong. “Around October 14, 2011, the Defendant Nonparty E forged and exercised one copy of the report concerning the application for additional medical care in the name of the complainant.”

In this respect, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having E receive criminal punishment.

3. The lower court determined that: (a) it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s fingerprints was affixed to E and F’s statements in this court and investigative agency, which correspond to the fact that the Defendant confirmed the content of the explanatory note and affixed his fingerprints; and (b) rather, according to the result of each unmanned appraisal, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility that E would have forged the explanatory note; and (c) it cannot be concluded that the Defendant’s above accusation was false accusation

4. A witness E, part of F’s legal statement, prosecution for E, of the original decision.