The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be suspended from a sentence of punishment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A’s grounds of appeal 1) Although there was no fact that the victim I made a false speech about H as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The grounds for appeal by the prosecutor: (a) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the victim I was not guilty on the ground that the amendment of the management rules by the amendment of related Acts and subordinate statutes was made in the process of amending the management rules, even though the victim I was aware of the fact that the victim I had amended the management rules in accordance with legitimate procedures and explained the reasons for sufficiently amending the management rules; (b) the expression “I is a false and conclusive dispute, and is a false and fraudulent one; (c) “I is a false and false one; and (d)” and “I is a false statement of specific facts,” although it constitutes a statement of specific facts, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

Judgment on A's argument

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, i.e., ① from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and consistently stated from the defendant A to the court of the court below, that the victim I expressed that the husband of the victim I would be the chief of the shipping police station, as stated in the facts charged, and ② at the same place as the defendant and the court of the court below, at the investigation agency and the court of the court below, on February 22, 2013, and at the same place as the defendant and the H, the plaintiff would have been aware that the husband was the chief of the traffic department of the Maritime Transportation Agency.