The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) the statement of the defendant's statement to supplement the defendant's complaint filed by the defendant and the defendant, it is evident that "E is a disabled person, even if it is false, and thus punished as a crime of fraud because it is provided with State support, such as electric wheelchairs free payment," is included in the defendant's complaint purport. Since it cannot be viewed as merely an exaggeration of the reported fact, the crime of false accusation is established, and the defendant was aware of the disabled person in view of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant was a disabled person in view of

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the re-statement of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant filed a complaint with the purport that “the Defendant, even though he is not a class 1 disabled person of this Grade E with visual disability, was a class 1 with visual disability and received the electric wheelchairs without compensation from the State, and acquired it by fraud,” as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the lower court. However, in light of the statement in the written complaint prepared by the Defendant, the Defendant Nonparty (E) testified that “the Defendant Nonparty (E) received the electric wheelchairs from the State to receive 9.5 million won without compensation, and sold the electric wheelchairs for 9.5 million won and received unfair profits, and then this part is required to be punished

The phrase “a sale” includes the fact that the electric wheelchairs was received without compensation and was “sale”. In full view of all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (Article 3-4 of the lower judgment’s judgment) in the lower judgment, it was legitimate for the lower court to receive the electric wheelchairs from the Young-gu office to the Young-gu office with disabilities of class 1 with visual disability.

Even if he did not immediately sell the wheelchairs that should be used for six years and returned to the Gu office in an unfair manner, it is highly doubtful that he did not immediately sell them, and the defendant's core contents in the complaint.