1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

1. Comprehensively taking account of the testimony of D, E, H, J, etc. that was at the site at the time of the instant case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant reported the false fact that the Defendant was assaulted by D to an investigative agency even though there was no assault by D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) On March 21, 2014, the defendant did not submit the appellate brief within the due date for submission of the appellate brief even after being served with the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records on March 21, 2014, and the appeal petition does not contain any provision in the grounds

A. On January 29, 2013, the facts charged as to the act of false accusation, the Defendant reported to the effect that, although there was no fact that the Defendant was assaulted by D on the front vessel of Samsung Heavy Industries C in the Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., located in the Samsung Heavy Factory Co., Ltd., which was located in the Singum-dong, around November 11, 2013, around 11:08, 2013, the Defendant used a phone call at the front vessel C in the Madon Police Station located in the above Madon Line, to the effect that “D abused the Defendant by means of either pushing the Defendant with a rail in the stairs of the Defendant’s flabing, or leading the Defendant.”

B. The decision of the court below held that the witness F testified in the court of the court below that the witness F “D carries the goods of why the person would die,” and that “D would wear the defendant’s arms to the extent that the work clothes against the defendant’s arms would increase, and the defendant led the defendant to the second floor according to D.” At the time, the witness F was in the nearest distance from the defendant, and was in a position to make an objective testimony, in view of the fact that the witness F was in a position to make an objective testimony, and that the other witness’s testimony appears to be in a position to have been in a position to make an objective testimony, the credibility of the statement is high, and the other witness’s testimony is mainly against the dispute at the safety zone.