A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on factual misunderstanding and forcing the victim to promote a specific employee and donate to G as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) In determining the credibility of the statements made by victims, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court affirmed the credibility of the statements made by them, as well as whether the contents themselves are rational, logical, contradictory, or empirical rules, or conforms to the statements made by physical evidence or third parties, as well as whether the statements made by them conform to the witness himself/herself, which are open to the public court after being sworn before a judge, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult for them to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penance of the statements made by himself/herself after being sworn at the presence of a judge, and the examination of witness should not be evaluated as credibility, unless there is any other evidence that can be objectively deemed to have no credibility when the statements made by the witness including the victim are consistent and consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2004Do17474).

In light of the above relevant legal principles, the court below and the party court have duly adopted it.