The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of non-guilty among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant not guilty of violating the law, and only the Defendant filed an appeal against the conviction portion.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the verdict of innocence becomes final and conclusive and only the guilty portion is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not report false facts, and there was no perception that reported facts were false, and there was no purpose of having E be subject to disciplinary action.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, voluntarily admitted the petition that was withdrawn on November 6, 2014, and subsequently withdrawn on December 2, 2014, the Defendant could have been led to confession or self-gradation

under section 157 and section 153 of the Criminal Code, the punishment must be mitigated or exempted.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court acknowledged the circumstances as stated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and determined that the Defendant, as false facts, appears to be subject to disciplinary action as it constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity of E, a police officer, and that the Defendant was aware that the content of the petition was false.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In addition, the purpose of a false report is to obtain criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition in a false report is sufficient if there is a perception that another person would be subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition due to such a false report, and it does not require that the result of the report is needed. Therefore, if a false person submits a written petition to an investigation agency, such perception was made.

It should be seen (Supreme Court Decision 90Do2601 delivered on May 10, 1991, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2712 delivered on September 30, 2005).