The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged stated in the summary order against the Defendant on March 21, 2015 that “Around March 21, 2014, at around 17:00” on the criminal facts of the summary order against the Defendant, but according to the records of the instant case, it is evident that the Defendant is a clerical error in the name of “ around March 21, 2015,” and even if the correction is made, there is no concern that a substantial disadvantage would be inflicted on the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, and therefore, the date of the crime would be raised as above.

In the case of the victim C, the fact that the victim had the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer of the right to demand the transfer

D In operating D, young chronism and the aging and chronty who were the impule, thereby undermining the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty as to the remaining facts charged of this case on the ground that, while E consistently makes a statement that corresponds to the facts charged from the police to the court of the lower court, E does not have any motive to make a false statement to E, the lower court convicted him of the remaining facts charged of this case.

3. Summary of the grounds for appeal and determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal: ① Since the right to receive the deposit is to establish a religious relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant did not have any reason to have the victim undergo an examination; ② the victim suffered the same damage as the facts charged in the instant case only after the provisional seizure of real estate was executed by the Defendant; and in light of the time and motive of the complaint, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was that it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement in light of the fact that the victim’s statement is difficult to be made, and thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone destroyed the victim’s reputation by speaking as stated in the facts charged.

It shall be readily concluded.