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

1. He, who is a witness of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles), has no motive to make a false statement for the victim by withdrawing from the company operated by the victimized person before the victimized person files a complaint against the Defendants.

In addition, even though there was a disposition that the injured party did not suspect the above defendant in the case where the injured party filed a complaint against the defendant B's residential intrusion (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office No. 2017 type No. 6147) but did not result from the victim's and H's false statement.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the victim and H’s statements that correspond to the facts charged, despite credibility, has erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that it is difficult to believe the statements made by the victim and H in each court and investigative agency in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

In addition to the end of the facts charged in this case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim made a statement to the effect that “Defendant B had removed his workplace at the date and place indicated in the facts charged in this case,” together with the statement to the effect that he had damaged his reputation, and that the facts charged in the first indictment by the prosecution were also included a part of the phrase that “the place of business was cancelled.”

However, according to the data submitted by the Defendants, G Co., Ltd. was confirmed to have closed the business on October 31, 2016, and Defendant B did not cancel the business at the time the victim claimed. Therefore, Defendant B said remarks.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, until July 29, 2016, Defendant B retired while serving as an employee of G Co., Ltd. operated by the injured party, and violated the duty of notice of payment of wages and dismissal in July 2016.