All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the defendant's grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts did not at all say that the defendant was frightened due to He or G's assault from H or G, or that the defendant was frightened due to the police frightenment, there was no other means to confirm the trace of damage from G, such as confirming the certificate of diagnosis, checking the head of G, or checking the head of G, etc., and ordering the management of G. Although the defendant did not have a duty to report to the superior agency, disciplinary action, or accusation, the court below convicted the defendant, even though the defendant did not have a duty to report to the superior agency, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant, even though the defendant did not recognize a

2) The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspension of qualification and suspension of sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below on the gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that “The legal statement of G and his father, who is the party to the instant damage, of H, is somewhat different from the investigative agency’s statement, but there is no essential difference in that the Defendant was aware of the fact of harm to G, such as that “G et al., was involved in assaulting her head with the police force,” and that there is no reason to make a false statement in light of the fact that G and H’s statement was more reliable than each of their respective legal statements, considering the fact that “G et al., whose head was abused by the police force, etc., and that their statements were specific and consistent, and that there was no reason to make a false statement in relation to G and H’s statement in light of the fact that they completed military service and did not want punishment against the Defendant, and that the degree of memory following the passage of time is more reliable than that of their respective legal statements. In full view of the investigation agencies and legal statements of G, H and their respective investigative agencies, as described in the facts charged, the Defendant’s statement from G and their senior causes.