A. The defendant did not speak as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the decision of the court below, and there was no awareness of the defendant as to the false facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel in detail, on the grounds that the defendant and his defense counsel have the same arguments as the grounds for appeal of this case in the court below, and on the grounds that "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" was stated in the judgment of the court

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, there were no errors in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant asserts that it is difficult to believe that D's statements are inconsistent with E and F's respective statements.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, it is difficult to find out the reason why D's statement is consistent from the investigation stage to the court below's trial, that is, the victim's statement is specific and natural, how the victim became aware of the Defendant's statement, the circumstances before and after the Defendant's statement, etc., as well as the reason why the Defendant's statement in detail is memory, and its contents can be reasonably seen, in light of D and the relationship between the Defendant, etc., it is difficult to find out the reason why D distorted the Defendant's statement and make a false statement. On the other hand, E and F are speaking in a state where the specific contents of the Defendant's statement are not memory, and there is a high possibility to call memory in a somewhat favorable direction for the Defendant in light of the relationship with the Defendant.