2. Determination

A. On August 1, 2016, around 12:00, the Defendant: (a) purchased the land and intended to construct a warehouse and a house in the wife population C (the south and the age of 34) with the victim D (the age of 34) to purchase the land; and (b) held that “I will not build the village development fund without setting it inside the warehouse and a house.”

As above, the Defendant: (a) received money from a frighter victim who frightened with the victim as the name of the Village Development Fund; (b) however, the victim did not have to do so; (c) thereby,

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that, in full view of the following: (a) the last correction date of the mobile phone cap written by the victim was made on June 5, 2017; (b) the above camera ought to be deemed to have been made on the above date; (c) the specific date and time of the crime committed by the victim when the victim makes the initial petition more than ten months after the date and time of the crime indicated in the facts charged appears to depend only on the victim’s memory; and (d) even based on the victim’s statement, the Defendant would have been threatening to the victim even before and after August 1, 2016; (b) it appears that the victim could have been confused with the accurate date and time; and (c) the Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not interview the victim on August 1, 2016.

C. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court has the nature of the so-called ex post facto review, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto review elements.