A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the 2016 order 4395 order order), the Defendant introduced H to G, but the Defendant was unaware of the fact that G was seeking the withdrawal of the singishing crime at the time, and thus, the Defendant conspiredd to commit the singishing crime or jointly processed it.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the lower court, stated as follows: (a) in relation to the instant case of 2016 Highest 4395, that “H was offered to introduce a person who would withdraw the amount of damage from springing, and sought “H to withdraw the amount of damage from springing” at the time when the first police statement was made (1st page 10 of the steam record); (b) the Defendant reversed the said statement at the time when the prosecutor made a subsequent statement at the prosecutor’s office; (c) but there was a question that “H was working for springing in Korea at the time when H was notified of the phone number at the time when the Defendant made a statement at the prosecutor’s office; (d) however, H attempted to do so by deeming that “H was changed to notify of the phone number.”

In full view of the following facts: “A person was aware of the fact that G was committed from the time when G made a statement as “A” and introduced H to G, and that H was anticipated to be involved in the crime of Bosing (Evidence No. 1:42, 43 page of the evidence record) and the Defendant was present at the time G and H et al. were gathered when G and H et al. were involved, the Defendant introduced H by receiving a proposal from G to introduce a measure to withdraw Bosing as stated in the judgment of the court below, and H introduced H through J and K, thereby soliciting and participating in the crime of Bosing.

(2) shall be deemed to have been duly authorized.