The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: Although the Defendant had not paid KRW 14 million as land down payment and intermediate payment to E (name before the opening of the name: G) and F, the Defendant complained of E and F as follows.

However, since the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Around April 2016, the Defendant, at the law firm B office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, drafted a written complaint against E and F with the aim of having E and F punished criminal punishment.

Even though E and F received KRW 14 million from the Defendant as the down payment and intermediate payment, it was done as if he did not receive the completion money, and by deceiving the court by means of the removal of trees and the filing of a lawsuit for land delivery, and thereby, attempted to punish the Defendant’s property by deceiving the court,” and the fact that the Defendant did not deliver money to E and F as the down payment and intermediate payment.

Nevertheless, on April 28, 2016, the Defendant submitted the above complaint to the police officer who is unable to know his name in the public service center of the Sejong Police Station located in the office of the Eup/Myeon Office of the Sejong Police Station in the office of the Eup/Myeon.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the description of the documents submitted by the complainant, such as a certified copy of the cadastral map, and the witness E’s partial legal testimony, the fact that, on June 26, 2012, E entered “A” in the column of the recipient of the down payment of KRW 4 million for the purchase and sale contract of the E, and “2012.09 10,000 won for intermediate payment,” respectively; and (b) affixed “2012 09 10,000 won for intermediate payment,” the lower court determined as follows; and (c) based on the evidence upon the application of the inspection, the Defendant did not provide E and F with the money as land down payment and intermediate payment.

It was determined that it cannot be readily concluded.

(c)

The judgment of this court is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.