The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant prepared a loan certificate on March 27, 2014. However, at the time, it is clear that D has forged the loan certificate as above, since D did not have any part of the loan certificate which D submitted while applying for voluntary auction (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant's accusation that D forged the loan certificate of this case is false and thus constitutes a crime of false accusation is erroneous.

2. The lower court determined that the loan certificate of this case was normally prepared between the Defendant and D, and the Defendant’s accusation that D forged the loan certificate of this case was false in light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the statement of E employed by a certified judicial scrivener E participating in the preparation of the loan certificate of this case, (ii) the Defendant, as stated in the loan certificate of this case, stated the name and the account number on the loan certificate of this case, (iii) the investigative agency assessed the loan certificate of this case, (iv) the appraisal result that the loan certificate of this case was compiled or forged, and (iv) there was no obvious motive to forge the loan certificate of this case.

The judgment below

Examining the text closely and closely by comparison, the court below's decision on the circumstances and its deadline are just and acceptable. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, there is no illegality due to the mistake of facts.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.