1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 18, 201, the Plaintiff, while driving a marina car owned by the Plaintiff on the street in the Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, at around 15:40, brought a defect to the Plaintiff, such as the Defendant’s change of the car car by using a C options car (hereinafter “Defendant”) owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant became a Si guard (hereinafter “instant dispute”) while taking a bath to the Plaintiff.

B. Around that time, the Defendant reported to the 112 purport that “The Plaintiff, who was disputing with the Plaintiff due to the instant dispute, destroyed the Defendant’s vehicle by launching the Defendant, and was waiting for him several times,” and stated to the same effect as being investigated by the police around 19:15 on the same day.

C. As a result of the investigation, the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a decision on September 30, 201 to suspend indictment on the Plaintiff’s suspicion of injury and damage to property, and to not prosecute the Defendant’s suspicion of insult as to the Defendant’s offense of insult, respectively, by penal punishment No. 52740 on September 30, 2011.

After that, the Plaintiff appealed against the foregoing decision to suspend indictment, and requested a re-investigation to the above prosecutor's office or filed a civil petition with the National Examination. As a result, the Plaintiff accepted the Plaintiff's request for re-investigation, and was subject to a decision on September 25, 2013 from the above prosecutor's office (No. 52072) (No. 2013).

E. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an accusation against the Defendant, and the said Prosecutor’s Office indicted the Defendant as a crime of false accusation on June 25, 2014 by this Court Decision 2014No3066.

The criminal facts are as follows.

On August 18, 2011, the Defendant had no fact that the Plaintiff was Guta or the Plaintiff was damaged by the Defendant’s options-car. However, for the purpose of having the Plaintiff be subject to criminal punishment, the Defendant was asserting that “the Plaintiff, a driver of the Maz Vehicle in the Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Yellow-gu Twitler, was arguing to the Plaintiff.”