A. The nature of a crime of false accusation in the event that the truth is true and reported;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding false awareness about the crime of false accusation

A. In the crime of false accusation, a report refers to a report that is filed without recognizing that the reported fact is false or having been true. Therefore, even if the report is inconsistent with objective facts, if the report is confirmed as true and reported, the crime of false accusation is not established. Here, conviction as true means that there is no perception that the reported fact might be false, i.e., there is no perception that the reported

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding false awareness about the crime of false accusation

A. Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do1622 delivered on December 28, 1982, 86Do2632 delivered on March 24, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No5030, 86No1728 decided Dec. 28, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below which affirmed the judgment of the court below which affirmed the non-indicted 31 by preparing one copy of the designated wholesale market designation plan submitted to the Seoul Office, which was submitted by the non-indicted 2 to obtain the designated wholesale market, and delivering it together with the list of recommending candidates, among the wholesale market designation plans submitted by the Seoul Office, in order to obtain the designation of the non-indicted 2 corporation, at around 09:0 on October 10, 1984, at the office of the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the merchant of the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the merchant of the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 2, the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, in collusion with the non-indicted 2 corporation.

2. However, in the crime of false accusation, a report refers to a report that is filed without recognizing that the fact of report is false or having been true. Therefore, even if the report is inconsistent with objective facts, if the report is confirmed as true and reported, the crime of false accusation is not established, and this is true and true. In other words, it means that there is no dolusence of the fact of report that is false

In this case, when considering the defendant's statement of false facts, the name of four persons such as the last misunderstanding, Lee Jae-sik, Lee Jae-sik, and Jeon Tae-ju, and the other fact that the defendant made double registration by forging and forging four seals of the non-indicted 2 corporation, the representative director of which the non-indicted 3 is the representative director, is stated that the defendant made double registration. In the court below's decision, the defendant made a false statement at around 13:00 on October 6, 1984 with the co-defendant of the court below that the co-defendant of the court below was on the Seoul Metropolitan Government's office located in the Seoul Metropolitan Government's concentration and office, and the designation plan for the designation of the co-defendant of the non-indicted 2 corporation, the co-defendant of the court below mentioned that the defendant did not make a final request for the above co-defendant, but the rest of the court below's co-defendant did not make a false statement to the non-indicted 3 corporation without any awareness that the above non-indicted 4 corporation was false.

On October 6, 1984, Co-defendant 2 of the court below stated that the co-defendant 2 of the court below made a statement to the purport that he is consistent with the above defendant's assertion, and that the co-defendant in the court below's office located in the concentration of viewing and office around October 6, 1984, when the co-defendant 2 of the court below reported the designated intermediary application of this case, he was prevented from putting the defendant about to see. Second, when the designated intermediary designation plan was seized under pressure No. 54 of 1985, the above double-party co-defendant 2's designated intermediary designation plan was included in the above double-party co-defendant's book, which was bound to be bound by the judicial police officer's disposition, and third, the defendant prepared the above application to see whether he did not have the effect of the final mistake, and as a result, the defendant prepared the application to see whether he did not have the effect of the testimony in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

In light of the above facts, the defendant found that the application form of the last mistake was filed in Seoul Metropolitan City concentration as the co-defendants of the court below, and it was directly confirmed that it was not made by the intention of the last mistake. Thus, the co-defendants of the court below who inspected the above designated wholesale plan, such as the above designated wholesale operator, and the defendant did not have any choice but to be convicted that the above last error was submitted to Seoul Metropolitan City concentration. Thus, it is difficult to view that the words of the co-defendants of the court below as to three persons, including the above last error, were false and conclusive. It is difficult to see that there was an incomplete perception that the words of the co-defendants of the court below as to three persons, including the above last error, were false and conclusive.

However, as above, the court below determined that there was a false perception of the fact that the defendant found the final mistake in the above designation plan of the above designated wholesaler and confirmed the forgery, without considering all the circumstances that the defendant believed the remaining three co-defendants of the court below as to the third co-defendants of the court below's report, such as e-mail, e-mail, and yellow Taeju, and that there was a false perception of the above three co-defendants of the court below. Thus, this cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts about the false perception by making a judgment on the value of evidence, and it is reasonable to dispute this point.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)