The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the OEM supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) was not forged at the time of the instant complaint, there was no intention to commit a crime without doubt.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor, two years of suspended execution, community service, 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The criminal intent in a crime of false accusation is not necessarily required to be a conclusive intentional act, and it is not necessary to establish a crime of false accusation by reporting the fact that the reporting person is true and that the reported fact is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4642, May 25, 2006). Furthermore, in the crime of false accusation, the reporting of false facts refers to a conclusive or dolusent recognition and reporting that the reported fact goes against the objective fact, and even if it is inconsistent with the objective fact, if the reporting person is true and reported, the crime of false accusation is not established. However, even if the reporting person is based on the objective fact known to the reporting person, it means the case where the reporting person has failed to perceive that the reported fact is false, might be false or false, or that it is likely to be false, based on the objective fact known to the reporting person, and it does not constitute an objective assertion that the reporting person’s report is legitimate by means of the evidence adopted at the time of 2000.