Whether a false fact can be immediately recognized only with a passive proof that a reported fact cannot be recognized as true in a crime without accusation (negative)

Since the crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition, the requirement that the reported fact goes against the objective truth requires positive proof, and that the authenticity of the reported fact is not recognized, solely by the passive proof that the reported fact goes against the objective truth, the establishment of the crime of false accusation cannot be recognized.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Do1455 Delivered on February 22, 1977

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Sung-ro

Jeonju District Court Decision 82No665 delivered on April 6, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it was presumed that Nonindicted 1 cut away from Nonindicted 2’s name on the grounds that it was true and true that Nonindicted 2 would have been by Nonindicted 1’s order, and that Nonindicted 2 would have been aware of Nonindicted 1’s intentional act, and that Nonindicted 2 would not have been aware of the fact, and that Nonindicted 1 would have been aware of the fact that it was in violation of Nonindicted 2’s order, and that Nonindicted 1 would not have been aware of the fact that Nonindicted 2 would have been sentenced to punishment on the spot of the Defendant’s accusation, and that Nonindicted 1 would have been aware of the fact that Nonindicted 2 would have been aware of the fact in the process of the police, the prosecution, and the court, and that Nonindicted 2 would have been aware of the fact that there was no illegality of Nonindicted 1’s order for punishment on the part of Nonindicted 3, and that Nonindicted 2 would have been aware of the fact that he would have been aware of the fact in question, and that he would have been aware of the fact that he had been given a direct confession.

However, since the crime of non-indicted 1 is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition, the requirement that the reported fact goes against the objective truth should be proven, and the establishment of a crime of non-indicted 1 cannot be acknowledged by readily concluding that the reported fact goes against the objective truth only with passive proof that the truth of the reported fact cannot be recognized. If the defendant's accusation in this case is based on objective truth, the fact that Non-indicted 1 cut down in the field of Domination is also recognized by the court below that the defendant's accusation constitutes a so-called crime of non-indicted 2's accusation, which is contrary to the objective truth, it is difficult for the court below to find that the non-indicted 1's accusation against the non-indicted 2's reasoning that it goes against the direction of the court below to find out that the non-indicted 1's accusation was false and that there is no evidence that the non-indicted 2's remaining statement in the field of non-indicted 1's prosecutor's order and the non-indicted 21's order.

Ultimately, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and found the defendant guilty of a false accusation based on macroscopic evidence, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to false proof and intention of a false accusation, which is an element of a crime of false accusation, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts due to evidence preparation contrary to the rule of experience. Therefore, the appeal is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)