The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant, at the time of filing the appeal, did not entirely take the same bath as the Defendant stated in the instant facts charged.

F being a witness was not present at that time.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of the Defendant’s defense on a different premise on the grounds that the Defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant had expressed a wish to the victim as stated in the instant facts charged, by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case.

① The police confirmed on January 13, 2017 that the day of taking pictures of the victim’s house stored in the F’s cell phone during the investigation process was the day of taking pictures of the victim’s cell phone.

② As to the process during which the dispute between the Defendant and the victim occurred in the court, F made a false statement as to the process of the dispute between the Defendant and the victim’s “at the time when the victim made a false statement,” which is disadvantageous to the victim as well as the date when the victim was made disadvantageous to the victim,” which indicates his/her subjective perception and evaluation as to the witness. As such, F made a false statement as he/she had experienced from the victim.

It is difficult to see.

③ Because of any point in the investigation process, F explained how the Defendant and the victimized person are memoryed at the time of the investigation, and stated their impression and perception about the witness.

In light of these statements, it is difficult for F to dismiss credibility on the grounds that F is a business partner of an enterprise related to the victim.

4. In this Court, the victim had been accused of the Defendant’s complaint, and “the victim completed his correct match.” However, the police did not want the victim from the Defendant.