logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.09.25 2020노199
무고
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant met with C; (b) the Defendant’s situation at the time; (c) C had been engaged in an illegal loan hub from D; and (d) paid part of C to the Defendant after receiving KRW 12.6 million from D, C’s statement that the Defendant purchased a vehicle in the name of the Defendant on the ground that it was necessary to supply the vehicle and provided cash in the name of the Defendant; and (c) it cannot be deemed that C agreed that the Defendant paid the vehicle on the basis of the payment of the vehicle on the part of the Defendant.

As such, the Defendant filed a false complaint with C as if C did not perform an installment payment agreement after having requested the Defendant to purchase the vehicle, thereby constituting a crime of false accusation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The crime of false accusation is established when the reported fact goes against the objective truth with the intention of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition. As such, the requirement that the reported fact goes against the objective truth requires positive proof. The establishment of the crime of false accusation is not established by readily concluding that the reported fact goes against the objective truth solely with the passive proof that the authenticity of the reported fact cannot be recognized. Even if a part of the reported fact goes against the objective truth, if it is not an important part affecting the establishment of a crime, but merely an exaggeration of the circumstances of reported fact, it is not an offense of false accusation (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2614, Jul. 11, 2019). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, according to the evidence, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was introduced to a person who renders credit card loans to him through B (hereinafter referred to as “credit card loans”).

arrow