A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles have voluntarily retired from a private teaching institute, and the defendant has not dismissed E.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, argued the same time as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part, and the lower court rejected the said assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by providing a detailed statement of the aforementioned assertion under the title “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

It is not possible (I) in the court of first instance to call for a recording file stating that "F is going to E at the time of face-to-face meeting of Defendant, E, or F, with a large amount of time for the defendant to go to E.

"........" The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, even if the evidence added in the trial is added, it is not sufficient to affect the judgment of the court below).

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

or in the course of the appellate court's sentencing review.