A. Of the receipts received from the victim of a fact, 767,00 won was settled on a three-month basis, and the remainder of the receipts was KRW 10,000, and the victim did not have any reason to withdraw KRW 900,000, and the victim was deemed to have embezzled the above amount. Thus, the defendant did not have the awareness that embezzlement of the amount by the victim was false.

The defendant at the site is not a "dominated fe" for the victim.

Inasmuch as there was no fact that the Defendant made the phrase “,” the Defendant did not have impaired the honor of the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court (200,000 won in 200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court stated the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the details of the revenue and expenditure of the senior citizen center as “the cost of purchasing equipment 767,000 won, 10,000 won for household goods, 112,500 won for household goods,” and the sum of the amount is 889,500 won that is close to KRW 900,000,000; and (ii) the victim from the investigative agency that “the Defendant released KRW 90,000 from the head of the Tong in the senior citizen center” was stated to the effect that “the Defendant released from the head of the Tong in the senior citizen center.”

F and G certifications are consistently stated, and F and the same purport is also the same (the 47,48 pages of investigation records), and ③ Defendant also did not have been engaged in an investigation agency in finding KRW 900,000 in the head of the senior citizen center Tong at the center without permission within the country.

“A fact that there was an accusation

In full view of the facts that correspond to part of the victim’s statement (the 56th page of the investigation record), the Defendant may fully recognize that the victimized person was aware of the fact that he/she has embezzled public funds in the senior citizen center, and that the fact was publicly false.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty.