A. The Defendant did not have any misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, stating the same content as the facts charged.

The defendant had such a talk

Even if the defendant believed that the content of the defendant was true and there is a reasonable reason to believe that the defendant's act is illegal.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 14, 2007, the lower court confirmed that the Defendant’s remarks constituted false facts and the Defendant was aware of the falsity, since all the participants at the meetings of the advisory group of the C federation on December 14, 2007, other than the Defendant, were suspected to have used the public funds individually at the time, and the meeting of the advisory group was convened, but it was not the suspicion as above, and was finally processed. The Defendant’s remarks constituted a false fact, and the Defendant was aware of the aforementioned facts at the meetings of the advisory group of India.

and there is a reasonable reason to believe that the defendant believed or believed the content of the statement to be true.

The facts charged can not be seen, and the judgment of guilty is guilty.

2) We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below for various circumstances recognized by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances: ① at the time when the defendant made a statement as to the facts charged.

G/H et al. consistently made a statement in the original court’s court as stated in the facts charged.

A statement is made by the defendant. The defendant has made a detailed and detailed statement about the circumstances in which the defendant made such statement, the current situation, etc., and the credibility of the statement seems to exist, and ② the victim is the federation.