The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) while four parts of the chemical that the security guards, etc. have managed were thought to be owned by C management group, Defendant D, without permission, to file the instant complaint with the said chemical part; and (b) the Defendant had no intention to commit a crime without permission; and (c) the Defendant did not intend to commit a crime without permission.

2. The criminal intent in the crime of false accusation is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and it is not necessary to establish a crime of false accusation by reporting the fact that the reporting person is true, and it does not require conviction that the reported fact is false (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4642, May 25, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, it is difficult for the residents of C to request the handling of any fire that is not necessary for security guards, and the security guards have brought such fire into their house or placed in the vicinity of the security room. ② The auditors of the management team, around October 10, 2013, at the 20th meeting of the 1st meeting, 3rd of the 2nd meeting, which is the head of the 4th meeting, to manage the 1st meeting, and the 1st meeting of the 2nd meeting of the 3rd meeting.