The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

[Judgment as to the Reasons for Appeal] The Defendant did not make a false statement as stated in the facts charged, as the gist D of the grounds for appeal shows a permit with a size of 90 square meters to the Defendant, and the Defendant delivered it to C.

(De Facto Error). The sentencing of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(F) The Majority Opinion argues that the admissibility of evidence against the assertion of misunderstanding of facts should be left to the free evaluation of judges, but such determination should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence by causing a suspicion of having probative value without reasonable grounds is impermissible as exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” in this context refers to the doubt that is reasonable, based on logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences, to the probability of a fact that is not compatible with the facts requiring proof. As such, there is a need to establish the basis for a sexual prosecution that is grasping the circumstances favorable to the defendant in relation to the fact finding, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibilities may not be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without reasonable doubt as to whether there was a false statement contrary to memory, inasmuch as there was no fact that the Defendant had obtained a permit with a size of 90 square meters from D, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. In so doing, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) The G-Myeon Chapter shall not exceed the N-si in Gwangju.