Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged in the instant case, even if all of the facts charged are recognized.

2. The lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that Defendant A was a guest in a singing practice room operated by Defendant B at the time of the police officer’s control, solely on the prosecutor’s protocol and each protocol of examination of suspect by the prosecutor’s office, under the title of “the defendant’s defense and judgment.”

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court based on the above judgment, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

According to the record of the examination of the witness in K, L, and F and the judgment (Evidence Nos. 5 to 8), each person who was a guest in the above singing practice room at the time of the control of police officers seems to have been only F and his/her behavior H and G, and otherwise, the defendant A and the Dominant women are not likely to have been on their job.

B. Even when examining the 112 reported details, the reporter only reported “illegal alcoholic beverage sales”, and it can be known that he/she did not report the Dominated loan arrangement. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the 112 reported details support or comply with the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office.

C. It is recognized that the Defendants, at the time of control and the instant trial process, exchanged conversations or exchanged text messages, etc.

However, at the time of the control of Defendant A.