Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that the court below reversed the statement to the effect that it corresponds to the defendant's defense in the first investigative agency's statement after obtaining permission from the defendant, i.e., the F was given a loan under the defendant's name from the statement of the investigative agency, i.e., the F was reversed the statement to the effect that it was consistent with the defendant's defense. However, the court below reversed the statement to the effect that F was not the defendant's ability to repay the loan it borrowed under the defendant's name at the time of the second prosecutor's investigation with the intention that it was responsible for the defendant's civil liability, and the result of the second prosecutor's investigation that the loan document was written at the time of the second prosecutor's office (at the present prosecutor's investigation, there is doubt about the result of the appraisal, but it stated again that the statement to the effect that it was the defendant's defense at the time of the second prosecutor's investigation, i.e., the latter stated that F was the defendant's consent at the time of the loan.