The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant: (a) opened a stringer in front of a passenger car owned by C and opened up the roof of the vehicle; (b) but the roof of the vehicle was not damaged; (c) on the ground that C was destroyed by insurance money or was thought to have carried a vehicle directly for the purpose of criminal punishment against the Defendant; and (d) thus, the Defendant did not file a false complaint.

In addition, there is no intention of accusation because there are sufficient reasonable grounds for doubt of one defendant.

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance court’s decision, and the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, based on the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance court.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings in the appellate trial, the appellate court does not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the judgment made by the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Meanwhile, just because the statement made by the witness of the first instance is inconsistent with the statement made by the witness of the first instance, it does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1212, Aug. 20, 209).