The appeal is dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to F and G’s non-defluence (the facts charged), in light of the lower court’s witness X and other statements, and the written agreement dated March 16, 2007, etc., F may recognize the fact that the brain of the Defendant was damaged on or around April 13, 2009. According to the H’s factual confirmation dated April 13, 2009, G may recognize the fact that the honor was damaged to A on or after the beginning of June 2008. Thus, the Defendant did not file a false complaint with F, etc. on the following grounds: (i) as to the non-defluence of F, J, L, etc. (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013No7771) (Article 201 of the Daejeon District Court Act) in light of the witness testimony and other statements of the lower court, the Defendant did not jointly commit a theft for the purpose of evading or destroying the Defendant’s escape.

3) Victims C (hereinafter “C”)

(4) As to the part of the damage to the victim's loss (Article 2013DaMa7777 of the Daejeon District Court Act, No. 2013DaMa777), the Defendant had the article T of Maclass permitted the removal of the clan, and had the article T of Maclass Maclass Maclass Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen Macen 3 of the Daejeon District Court Act, the Defendant attempted to recover the part of the attempted fraud against the victim's loss (Article

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the determination of the error of facts regarding F and G, namely, the C clan G.