A. (1) Error of fact: (a) the victim C (hereinafter “C”) actually conspired with the victim F (hereinafter “F”) who was a pet of pro-gu G; and (b) C and F were living together as a relationship corresponding to a de facto marital relationship or a de facto marital relationship; and therefore, this part is not false.

In addition, the Defendant heard such remarks from G and his wife and believed them, and there was no awareness or intention on the false facts that it was said as such, in consideration of the fact that F was replaced by F, and that F was accompanied by the travel of the husband and wife.

(2) On October 16, 2013, the Defendant had no fact between I and I’s house.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal at the lower court, and based on the title “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”, the lower court, although there were some points that may lead to misunderstanding of the conduct of C and F (e.g., that F was replaced by the network of C, or that it was accompanied by the travel of the husband and wife at the same time). Furthermore, F was a friendly relationship between C and C.

Since it cannot be deemed that C was divorced from the former wife due to the fact that C returned to F or that C was dead, the Defendant rejected the above assertion on the ground that it is reasonable to see the Defendant’s words as the statement of false facts.

원심이 설시한 위와 같은 사정들에다가 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들을 보태어 보면, C이 친구인 G의 애인이었던 F를 가로챘다

The defendant cannot be deemed to have divorcedd the denial of C in order to marry with C, and it is difficult to view that the defendant heard such words from G and his wife and speaked in the state of trust, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(1) G shall be from investigative agencies.