The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (fact-finding) is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with D for the use of the two stores of this case with D and I, and had been already agreed upon as I to establish and operate the actual sampling; and (b) even after G became operating the shopping mall on behalf of I, D continued to use the goods in the said sampling as the sampling for G without replacing them; (c) the Defendant only testified on the basis of memory of these facts on the basis of a different judgment; and (d) the Defendant is not guilty since he testified otherwise.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the defendant testified to the effect that the first instance court concluded a loan agreement for use with I on the two stores of this case to the effect that the defendant used D by entering into a loan agreement with D on the loan between D and D, or that D used it. Furthermore, although the defendant did not enter into the loan agreement with H on the loan for use between D and H, it can be acknowledged that the defendant testified to the effect that H had used it, and that the defendant did not use it, as seen above, the first instance court did not enter into the loan agreement with H on the two stores of G management or set up it as a sampling store with H, notwithstanding the fact that H had used it, the defendant testified to the effect that H had made a sample store in the above stores. According to the above acknowledged facts, considering the context and form of the above testimony, it is apparent that the defendant testified as a content contrary to objective facts, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant made a mistake of facts in light of the ordinary meaning of each law.