In light of the fact that the witness can make a statement in a somewhat exaggerated manner due to the relationship between the witness and the victims, and that the witness's memory may be partially invaded with the passage of time, the credibility of the witness's memory cannot be readily rejected.

The witnesses consistently stated that the defendants had consistently made a statement that "the defendants had expressed their desire to the victims and interfered with the victims' acceptance of coffee at any time while entering the car page of the victims," and that they have credibility in their statements.

Nevertheless, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case.

2. The judgment of the first instance court is difficult to recognize credibility by taking into account the circumstances as set forth in the reasoning of the judgment. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the Defendants, by openly pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged, thereby impairing the honor of the victim I, harming the victim, harming the disturbance, and harming the victim F by abusing the victim F, and obstructing the victim J’s operation of coffee shop.

The charges of this case were acquitted on the ground that they cannot be seen.

In full view of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court in the circumstances stated in the first instance judgment, it is justifiable for the first instance court to have acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground as above.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(1) The competition, etc. caused by the same type of business has a extreme impact on the relationship between the Defendants and the victims, and the victim I intrudes on the inside of the defendant B, thereby hindering the operation of the raft.