A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, did not make a statement to I as to the facts charged of this case, and even if the Defendant had made such a statement in a situation where I had a different statement, and thus did not have a public performance, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 500,00,000 and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and its evidence, i.e., I consistently at an investigative agency and a court of the lower court, and

The testimony is made, ② J, a witness applied for by the Defendant, also stated in the court of original trial that “the Defendant made a statement to the same purport as the facts charged in this case twice to himself,” and ③ K including I, and J et al., that all the Defendant or another person made the same remarks as the facts charged in this case.

In full view of the following facts: (a) those who participated in a multi-level business entity such as the defendant or the victim, there is no special relation to the victim's complaint; (b) the credibility of the statement made by the victim, I, K, and J, such as the defendant's assertion, conflict between the victim and the victim is difficult to easily understand; (c) there is no circumstance to make a false statement even when they are subject to perjury or punishment; and (d) the written complaint against the victim made by the defendant to I et al. against I et al. was eventually transferred to the victim; and (c) performance is likely to be disseminated to others.