All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s restaurant within the instant funeral hall (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) between Defendant, F, E, and C.

The testimony that the Defendant agreed to operate in the name of C was a testimony contrary to his memory. However, since there was such an agreement between the Defendant, F, E, and C, the testimony that the Defendant testified as above did not go against memory. 2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court determined that it was difficult to deem that the Defendant testified against his memory, on the ground that the shares received by the Defendant and C at the time when the Defendant agreed to divide the shares of the Defendant, F, E, and C, were either the shares of the entire funeral hall of this case or at least the Defendant accepted the shares. However, according to the lawful evidence revealed in the instant case, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant testified against his memory. In particular, the lower court determined as above on the grounds that the Defendant did not recognize the voluntariness of the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the public prosecutor. In light of the background leading up to the investigation of the Defendant, the lower court recognized the voluntariness of the above protocol of

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant, F, E, and C did not agree to operate the instant restaurant in the name of C by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and that the Defendant was aware of such facts. A.

Witness

F and E make a statement not only to have agreed as above, but also to the effect that “F was aware that it was a restaurant business operator in its own name”, and four persons, such as the testimony of the defendant.