A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. The court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the testimony of F, H, I, and J without credibility due to a conflict of interest between the Defendant and the objective circumstance, even though the Defendant did not make a false statement against his memory, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of proof in finding the Defendant’s guilt or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of proof, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content of the written indictment No. 3 and No. 1 of the indictment No. 3 and the written indictment No. 9 of the crime list No. 1 of the indictment No. 9 of the indictment No. 1 of the indictment No. 1 of the indictment No. 1 of the indictment No. 1 of the same case, "I have prepared a false statement "I have not been accurately memoryd, I would have retired," and since this court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the first instance

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. In light of the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or by the time the results of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court are concluded.