The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant (as to the mistake of facts, defamation by publication, and defamation by publication), all of the facts alleged in books, printed materials, and newspaper advertisements are true (as long as the defendant alleged that he believed that the defendant was true even if he stated false facts, there was a considerable reason to believe that he believed that the defendant was true, and that he knew the fact to him of historical facts, and there was no purpose of slandering him, and there was no purpose of slandering that he made him aware of the truth, and the prosecutor alleged that the illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act is excluded because he merely pertains to the public interest, and only constitutes fraud under Article 310 of the Criminal Act). (b) According to the mistake and misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles of evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts that "the application for recovery registration" and "the original copy" as the primary facts charged, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this case

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the prosecutor ex officio examined the theft among the previous facts charged, and then added “Embezzlement” to the name of the conjunctive crime, and added Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act to the preliminary charges pursuant to the applicable law. The following (the grounds for the new judgment) filed an application for amendment of the indictment with the content that adds the facts charged as stated in Article 355(4) of the Criminal Act to the preliminary charges, and by allowing this Court, the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained due to the above reasons for reversal, but the defendant's assertion of fact and the prosecutor's primary charges are erroneous and misapprehension of legal principles.