The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts constituting the crime No. 3(a) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not actually have sexual intercourse with S, which was the president of Q female. 2) In relation to the facts constituting the crime No. 3(b) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's testimony does not purport that B continued to know that there was a spouse of the defendant during the period from the beginning of a relationship between the defendant and B until the termination of a relationship between the relationship between the defendant and B, but at the first time, B knew the facts of the defendant's spouse and knew that B was divorced by the defendant's deception, and that B knew that he was aware of the fact of the defendant's spouse, and that he was aware of the fact of the defendant's spouse again because he was aware of the false misunderstanding.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, despite the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with Q female president, Q female president, the Defendant made a false statement.

① Around January 2015, 2015, S, the president of Q female, reported the letters sent to the Defendant immediately, met S, and the Defendant was in a relationship with the Defendant, and the Defendant stated that “S and unmanned telecom was sexual intercourses” to B around January 20, 2015. As such, the Defendant recognized that at that time said words were made to B.

② R, the husband of S, was present as a witness on the second trial date of the court below and stated that S “the defendant and S had a sexual intercourse with the unmanned telecom.”