A. misunderstanding of facts (a.g., a mistake of facts) by the Defendant merely borrowed KRW 500,00 from the victim and did not interfere with it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made

(2) On November 24, 2006, the lower court directly examined D and convicted him of the facts charged of the conflict of this case by recognizing the credibility of the said statement. (3) The lower court erred by misapprehending the credibility of the said statement. (4)

It is not considered that maintaining the judgment of the court below on the credibility or credibility of the judgment is significantly unfair.

Comprehensively taking account of other evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the above statement, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had been delivered KRW 500,000 from the victim by showing the same attitude as the defendant interfered with the victim's multiple-related affairs. Thus, this part of

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments of unreasonable sentencing; and (b) the Defendant had the same criminal conviction and not agreed with the victim.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless.