The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant did not deliver a phiphone to C as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The most important thing is C's statement to the effect that the defendant was given a written phone from the defendant as evidence of guilt, and the defendant asserts that the defendant's statement was not reliable in light of the circumstances, such as the reversal of C's statement to the investigative agency.

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor: (i) when undergoing the first examination by the prosecutor, C stated that the defendant was issued a penphone more than twice as shown in the facts charged; (ii) reversed the statement when conducting the second examination by the defendant; and (iii) stated that the prosecutor received the second examination by the prosecutor; and (iv) stated that the defendant made a false statement on the basis of the record of the house interview with the defendant, which contains the statement to recognize the fact of issuance of a penphone, by taking the second examination by the prosecutor; (v) it appears that there was a considerable reason for the reversal of the above statement; (v) it appears that there was a credibility in the final statement; and (v) it appears that C received a cellphone more than twice from the defendant; and (v) it appears that the defendant made a false statement at the cost of 40 weeks in addition to the statement related to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.