The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

A summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) D submitted to the police station a letter of complaint stating that D was at the time of, or was injured by, the defendant, although the defendant did not have been injured, D submitted a letter of complaint stating that D was at the time of, or was injured by, the defendant.

In spite of this, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that D did not sufficiently prove that D was not able to do so or did not injure the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On January 13, 2014, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with respect to D using a computer located in the Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-do.

A written complaint states, “In the front of F, on January 8, 2014, around 21:00, the Defendant U.S. C had the shoulder of the complainant in his/her hands, 2:3 times in his/her hands, and her hand caused the complainant’s shoulder up to 2:3 times in 2:3 times in her hands, thereby causing damage to the character that requires approximately three weeks of treatment to the complainant.” However, D did not have any fact that the complainant caused injury or injury.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted the above complaint to the police officer who is unable to know his name at the public service center of the same Chocheon Police Station at the time of the above day.

Accordingly, the defendant had D without the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the evidence as shown in the facts charged in the instant case and there was each statement made at the investigation agency of D and G, but D had prevented the Defendant from taking a bath at the time and continuing to leave the Defendant’s site; and (b) as a result of the psychological physiological examination of D, it did not lead to a true response to the statement; and (c) in light of the relationship between G, the Defendant, H, and D, the possibility that G would make a favorable statement to D cannot be ruled out.