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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment. Whether the reported fact is false or not shall be determined according to the core or important contents of the reported fact in relation to the elements of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do1950 delivered on October 11, 1991. In addition, even if a part of the content of a report contains any content contrary to objective truth, if it is not subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary action independently, and it is merely an exaggeration of the circumstances of the reported fact, or at least a false fact does not directly affect the establishment of a crime or disciplinary cause in full view of the existence of a false fact (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do556 delivered on September 23, 1986), the crime of false accusation is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do556 delivered on September 23, 1986). As long as the objective fact is reported as it is, the subjective evaluation of a law is wrong and reported it

(1) The facts alone do not constitute a false report.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do3245 delivered on June 25, 1985). 2. The court below filed a complaint that “F, G, and H interfered with the Defendant by threatening the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant complaint”). However, there seems to be no circumstance to recognize that F, G, and H had caused a threat to the Defendant’s believers at the time when F, G, and H came to find a church run by the Defendant, which is a pastor. In light of the Defendant’s statement in other criminal cases, it appears that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 50 million to F, etc. was not because F, etc. sent content certification to the Defendant or by finding the above church, etc., by threatening the Defendant.