In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts (Article 1-1 of the facts stated in the judgment below) 1) The defendant and the person entitled to the medical care and custody (hereinafter "defendant") are able to play together on the day of the instant case with the match indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter "the instant match"), but it is merely merely that the dog was accompanied by the defendant, and the defendant did not dispose of it.

Therefore, there was no intention of illegal acquisition of the instant match in the Defendant.

2) There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the course of the appellate trial’s trial. Unless there are reasonable circumstances to deem that the determination of documentary evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the course of the trial of the appellate court.

In addition, the lower court also rejected this assertion in detail, on the grounds that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment, the lower court rejected this assertion.

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.

The lower court that convicted this part of the facts charged is justifiable.

The lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the Defendant, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

(b).