(a) the meaning of reports of false facts in the crime of false accusation and recognition standard for false facts reported;

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute a crime of false accusation since the contents of accusation against the defendant Gap, whose contents of accusation against the defendant Gap are false, correspond to objective facts in its important part;

A. The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment. Even if the reported person believed it to be false, if it conforms to objective true facts, it does not constitute a crime of false accusation. On the other hand, whether the reported fact is false or not should be determined based on whether the core or important contents of the reported fact are false or false in relation to the elements of the crime.

B. The content of the Defendant’s accusation against the Defendant is that “the Defendant violated the above Article of the Environmental Conservation Act by releasing water from boilers containing “specific hazardous substances or industrial wastes” as stipulated in Article 37 of the Environmental Conservation Act. On the other hand, the Defendant’s accusation against the Defendant did not contain “specific hazardous substances or industrial wastes” and thus, the Defendant’s accusation against the Defendant was false. However, even if the Defendant’s release of boilers does not contain specific hazardous substances or industrial wastes as stipulated in Article 37 of the Environmental Conservation Act, the Defendant’s accusation against the Defendant cannot be said to constitute a crime of false accusation, since the Defendant’s accusation against the Defendant is objectively true in its essential part, insofar as the Defendant’s release of boilers does not constitute a crime of false accusation.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act and Article 37 of the Environmental Conservation Act (repealed by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, Law No. 4257 of August 1, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No7647 delivered on June 12, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant filed a complaint with the police to the effect that, based on macroficial evidence, three persons such as the defendant, etc. who was the head of the management office of the non-indicted 1 corporation's boiler 2, the head of the management office of the Gangdong-gu Seoul apartment company's apartment management agent, filed a complaint with the police to the effect that "the defendant did not instruct the non-indicted 2 to abandon wastewater, and the defendant did not know the fact that the non-indicted 2 did not throw out wastewater, but did not inform the non-indicted 2 of the fact that the non-indicted 2 did not inform the non-indicted 2 of the fact that the non-indicted 2 did not inform the fact that the non-indicted 2's act did not contain any specific content of the non-indicted 2's act of discharging wastewater under the Enforcement Rule of the Environmental Conservation Act, although it was found that the above customs water level did not constitute 2.0 or 12.5, but did not constitute an industrial waste.

2. The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment. Even if the reported person believed it to be false, if it conforms to objective true facts, it does not constitute a crime of false accusation. On the other hand, whether the reported fact is false or not should be determined by determining the core or important contents of the reported fact in relation to the elements of the crime, depending on whether it is false or not.

3. According to the records, the important part of the accusation against the defendant of non-indicted 2 related to the constituent elements of the crime is a violation of the above Article of the Act by releasing the boiler customs license containing "specific hazardous substances or industrial wastes" as defined in Article 37 of the Environmental Conservation Act without any justifiable reason. Meanwhile, the important part of the complaint against non-indicted 2 is that the defendant discharged the boiler license containing "specific hazardous substances or industrial wastes" and the defendant's material part of the complaint against non-indicted 2 is false. Thus, even if it is acknowledged that the defendant discharged the boiler customs license as stated in the prosecutor's non-prosecution decision, if it does not contain any specific hazardous substances or industrial wastes as defined in the above Act, the above accusation content of non-indicted 2 is false, and on the other hand, it conforms to the objective facts in its material part, and thus it cannot be said that the defendant reported false facts.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that the act of the defendant in this case does not constitute a crime of false accusation is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding the legal principles of false accusation as in the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)