The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant, while running a real estate business, administered phiphones on a single-net basis due to difficulties in games around 2008. During the investigation process, D was sentenced to one year, and as a result, D was under imprisonment with prison labor. After D’s release, the Defendant was related to aiding D by drinking and drinking, or lending the name of cell phone to D. Since D’s attempt to flee by driving phiphones, D was arrested on December 7, 2013, and it was hard to view that it was difficult for the Defendant to make an investigation at the time of the first investigation by the police as “I”, and then, the Defendant changed its duty to supply phis to the effect that it was difficult to obtain a false statement from the head of the investigation agency, which was written at the time of 0 years before and after its release, and that it was also written at the same time as the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it was written at least 10 years before and after its issuance.