All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, K, I, Y, Q, etc., the Defendants were fully aware of the fact that the Defendants had never discovered I as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. While Defendant A, a planning real estate business entity G and H engaged in the sale and purchase of real estate at the planning real estate business entity, Defendant A became aware of the first (name after the opening of the name: AH) and became aware of the last day of 2006, and received money from I in the planning real estate business entity. Defendant A, on February 2008, suffered monetary damage from I in the course of jointly operating J, Inc., Inc., a company Eb event, with I, and became at the risk of being faced with the civil and criminal lawsuit by being urged by I to pay for the amount of damage, etc.

Accordingly, Defendant A, at October 2008 and the investors of the above J, had been unable to bring civil and criminal lawsuits with Defendant B and C, or had the mind to see I in order to occupy priority in the lawsuit.

At around October 2008, the Defendants conspiredd with K to report I to the police to be subject to criminal punishment by reporting I to the thief and reporting I to the police as a thief, and following the process of consultation with K to make I as a female of A, 007 as a thief, as the husband of I is a public official, and the husband of I is a public official.

According to the above public offering and the division of roles of each person, the Defendants reported the theft of 112 at the "M" office located in the "M" office on November 12, 2008, and stated that "M was stolen 007 households located in the accommodation of the "M" office between October 27, 2008 and November 2, 2008," and that "M was stolen at the criminal police station of the "M" office around 10:00 on November 25, 2008."