A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on August 18, 2015, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the F’s statement contrary to this part of the facts charged is highly reliable, but the testimony by C and G, contrary to this part of the facts charged, is very low, and the credibility of the statement is extremely low, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even if it is sufficiently convicted, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as F’s statement, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the penalty of six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 73,500 won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, it is difficult to view that the F’s statement, the core evidence presented by the Prosecutor, as supporting this part of the facts charged, is sufficiently reliable, and that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged even in full view of all other evidence.

In addition to the circumstances described in the lower judgment, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (i.e., the Defendant: (a) although there was a fact between G and G around that time, the Defendant left G’s house with narrow C and F, but stayed in G’s house, along with G’s house. At the time, the Defendant, on his own, only one room was used, and C and F was written with his bank, and was in a state of absence of C and G.

A statement consistent with the Defendant’s statement to the effect that there was no fact that the phone was administered (Evidence Records No. 184, 259, 260, 320 pages). ② G only stated F at one’s home, and stated that F did not have any fact in the telephone with F, and that there was no fact that the phone was administered, and that C also made a statement consistent with the above statement (No. 36 pages of the record of trial), ③.