The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not instruct E to receive premium in the name of G to transfer it to the account under G.

E set the premium for stores without obtaining permission from the defendant, and made use of G and its account to receive the premium and arbitrarily use it.

Therefore, the defendant's accusation that E embezzled the premium for a store cannot be deemed to be false, and the defendant filed a complaint to determine that E embezzled the difference between the nominal amount such as the agreed deposit or premium at the time of concluding a lease agreement on a store and the amount actually deposited in D, a stock company operated by the defendant, and thus, the defendant did not have any awareness that the fact of complaint was false.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The court below's decision on unfair sentencing (the fine of 5,000,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact is false against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary action. In this case, the criminal intent of the crime of false accusation is sufficient without necessarily having a definite intention, and thus, it is not necessary to establish the crime of false accusation by reporting the reported fact that the reported fact is true, and it does not require the reporter to have a conviction that the reported fact is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4642, May 25, 2006). 2) The following circumstances, namely, ① from the investigation agency to the court below to the court below, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below and the party trial, and, in other words, from the defendant E, received money in the name of the premium from the store lessee.