음악산업진흥에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable since the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant, misunderstanding that the defendant is not an operator of the Dnonoman bank as stated in the facts constituting the crime
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty by taking account of the evidence as indicated in its judgment.
B. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) on July 6, 2012, the Defendant stated that J District Assistant H, a police officer, was operating Dnobs on behalf of E from April 1, 2012 (the witness H’s testimony and its content cannot be deemed to be a witness H’s own testimony and its content cannot be deemed to be a witness’s own testimony); and (b) G also recognized that the Defendant was in contact with the Defendant under the direction of the police (Evidence 26, the witness G at the lower court court’s court court’s court court’s court court’s testimony that the Defendant did not know the Defendant’s name, and was said to be a match; (c) the Defendant’s testimony was not a police officer’s actual business owner, and thus, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s testimony to have been made in the process of singing, and thus, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s testimony to have been made as an Enobs.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit.