The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On February 2, 2018, the Defendant drafted a false complaint with the intent to have the victim D punished by criminal punishment at the Seo-gu Seoul Certified Judicial Scriveners Office located in Seo-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-si, Seowon-si.

On May 12, 2017, the content of the complaint was signed between the defendant and D on the website development contract between D to make the Internet homepage on the Internet service cost of KRW 8.8 million, and D did not provide the result of the service contract to be made on December 2, 2017 even if D received the total amount of the above service cost, so it was true that D received the above service cost and acquired it without intention or ability to perform the contract.

However, there was a fact that D completed the production of the Internet homepage on July 31, 2017, and the defendant explained to the manager's account information and the use method of the Internet homepage.

Nevertheless, on February 19, 2018, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to the police officer in charge of civil petition affairs at the Cheongju-si Police Station located in Cheongju-si, 266, and rejected D.

B. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was not guilty as seen below in the grounds of appeal for mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in determining the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by taking account of the evidence as stated in D and E’s respective legal statements, etc.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles D did not properly implement the development contract of this case on the web site and did not do so on the web site, which is the result of completion, it cannot be deemed that the contents of this case's complaint were false, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to make a false report to the Defendant, without any awareness that the Defendant reported false facts, under different premises.