A. Defendant: Although there was no fact that there was an error of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unreasonable sentencing, Defendant believed F’s false statement and convicted Defendant of the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles must be without any reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence recognized as probative value by causing doubts without any reasonable ground is not allowed beyond the bounds of Jism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994). In a case where the witness’s statement is consistent in its main part, the credibility of the witness’s statement is not readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1212, Aug. 20, 2009); however, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s statement of this case is consistent with the lower court’s 1).