beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part concerning the non-appeal against L is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
(b).
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to L’s non-prosecutions), the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact for the purpose of having L be subject to criminal punishment. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Around September 23, 2013, the Defendant drafted a false complaint with respect to L at the Bupyeong-gu Police Station located in Pyeongtaek-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) around September 23, 2013.
The gist of the complaint was that "a L, who was driving a dump truck on September 2, 2013, overtakes the complainant's driver's gallon, and stops dump truck on the dump truck on the dump truck, thereby causing the complainant's vehicle to shock the rear part of the defendant's dump truck on the dump truck."
However, L was in fact stopping a dump truck to comply with it due to the driving cost between the defendant and the defendant, and dump truck was parked or was attempted to kill the defendant through the stopping of the vehicle. In addition, the site of the case did not have a dump truck, and the field of the case is secured without a dump truck, and if the dump truck is parked on the road, the driver of the vehicle will be fully aware of it and the vehicle can be stopped.
Nevertheless, on September 23, 2013, the defendant submitted the above complaint to the police officer who is unable to know his name in the public service center of the Bupyeong Police Station.
Accordingly, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having LA punished criminal punishment.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s accusation of L as above (hereinafter “instant complaint”) was either an exaggeration of the circumstances or a subjective evaluation of law.