A. In light of the fact that the victim was flick in E office used both as an office and residence, the defendant only told the victim that he borrowed flick, but did not bring his body into the office outside of the above office, but the court below found the facts charged in this case and found the defendant guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below erred.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, the victim opened the office door at the time when the Defendant was able to find out, and opened the office door at the time when the Defendant was able to find out. At that time, the Defendant’s bridge and body was in the position of one bridge, and was outside the office of one bridge,” and the witness F consistently stated in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court that “I am at the time of the victim’s office.” Although he did not appear in the direction of the victim’s office, the victim was not able to look at the victim’s office or sound before the office, and the victim was also able to see the victim’s body in the form of the G investigation agency and the victim’s body in the form of “after the victim’s office.”