The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not make the same statement as the facts constituting the offense in the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that G’s investigation agency and the lower court’s statement without credibility and, in particular, F’s investigation agency’s statement which cannot be deemed to have been conducted under particularly reliable circumstances, committed a mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court and the lower court, it can be recognized that G’s statements and F’s investigative agency’s statements have both admissibility and credibility. Accordingly, the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine on a different premise is without merit.

However, the "E" of the crime No. 2 of the court below seems to be a clerical error in the "H".

① G consistently stated from an investigative agency to the lower court that “at the time of the instant case, at the time, the Defendant appeared to the same end as the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment,” and was at the present site.

D also appeared as a witness at the trial of the party and testified consistent with G's statement.

(2) At the same time,

F The investigative agency stated that “the Defendant had expressed to G at the time of the instant case referring to “the term “the Defendant drinked her million won”. Unlike GBD, the said statement made by F, who appears to have not been in a hostile relationship with the ordinary defendant, voluntarily attended the investigative agency in light of the content of the statement, as neutrally and neutrally, there is little room for false intervention in the content, and it is specific and external to ensure the credibility or voluntariness of the content in light of its content.