A. The Defendant did not commit the same crime as indicated in each of the facts charged in the 2020 Highest 2338 Incident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

In light of the above legal principles, if there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court's judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant denies the first instance judgment on the following facts: (a) the Defendant, even at the lower court, denied all the charges of the first instance case in 2020, J. 238; and (b) the lower court, after the process of examination of each witness against I,O, F and L from among victims, followed the reasonableness of the statement itself, logic, logic or inconsistency with the empirical rule, or whether the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, as well as the witness's statement or inconsistency in front.