The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) is based on the facts stated in the complaint of this case by the misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles. The purpose of the defendant's complaint by the investigating police officer was only the defendant's request for re-investigation of the case against the past D, and it did not have the purpose of having the police officer subject to criminal punishment. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in the absence of the defendant's intention to commit

(2) Even if the sentencing was found guilty, the punishment (ten months of imprisonment) that the court below sentenced on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary measure against a false report is sufficient when there is a perception that another person would be subject to criminal or disciplinary measure for the purpose of false report, and it does not require that the result would result. As long as the defendant submitted a written complaint to an investigation agency, such perception exists as long as the defendant submitted it to the investigation agency.

We can see (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2601, May 10, 191, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, the defendant asserted that the defendant is a fact-finding with the same purport as the grounds for appeal of mistake of the above facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles. As to this, the court below rejected the above claim on the ground that, considering the following circumstances as stated in its reasoning, E criminal case belonging to the Seoul Guro Police Station, which forged part of the first statement made by the defendant on October 26, 2015 and forged part of the first statement made by the defendant on October 28, 2015, although the defendant did not investigate the defendant around October 28, 2015, the second statement made by the same day was forged.

The court below's decision.