The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

D. The Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and by imprisonment for 8 months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D1) The misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles stated that Defendant D was merely a “stod as it is,” which the police investigation is scheduled to be conducted by the police, and the police investigation of the above Defendant was intended to make a statement to B according to the Defendant’s stated purport.

In fact, the above defendant cannot be seen, and there is no fact that the defendant stated to the purport that "the answer is made" against B, and the defendant D did not make a false statement contrary to memory.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October, and two hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants on the grounds of ex officio determination, and the lower court’s “ Copy of each protocol of examination of witness (part of the fourth trial protocol)” presented by the lower court on the summary of the evidence was inadmissible, and thus, the lower court admitted it as evidence and found it as the grounds for conviction. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby making it impossible for the lower court to maintain the judgment (the first trial was conducted by newly adopting and examining the protocol of examination of witness with the seal of the presiding judge at the second trial date). Although there was a ground for reversal of ex officio, the allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine of Defendant D still is subject to the judgment of the lower court, and this is examined as follows

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant D’s assertion 1) in the police.