The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the defendant was requested by the F, the wife of E, from May 16, 2010 to May 26, 2010, and that the F, despite the defendant's recommendation to visit the hospital on May 23, 2010, visited the hospital, asked the condition of E, and look back to the hospital, and then the E, regardless of the defendant's recommendation to visit the hospital, he did not want to report it, and returned without the request to visit. The phrase "the extent of one week after the hospitalization is not possible," considering the nature of the mental division, the fact that the restriction of the interview can be imposed for the first week, but it does not purport to prohibit the interview uniformly, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning is just and acceptable; and (b) there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) F shall be for the same year from May 16, 2010 where E was hospitalized at the court of the competent trial.

6. From May 27, 2010 to May 23, 2010, the first interview was made, and thereafter three times thereafter, and the interview was made several times, including May 17, 2010 to May 23, 2010, and May 23, 2010. In the case of the interview, the interview was written at all times, but the interview was not prepared on the date on which the interview was not actually made.

In addition, F, at the court of the first instance, only one week after hospitalization, was possible to visit the hospital on May 23, 2010, and at the entrance, the staff visit the hospital at the entrance.