The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant B (including the innocent part in the reason) and the part against Defendant C, respectively.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact that: (a) the prosecutor of the public prosecutor’s office (wholly charged with the facts charged against the defendant A; and (b) the defendant A and C consistently made a statement to the effect that all confessions have been made in the public trial process of the first public trial; and (c) the date has been postponed upon the request of the defendant B, and it appears that the defendant B reversed the statement due to the meeting of the defendant B and the aggravation of the relationship with H; and (d) it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged, the court below rejected the credibility of the above statement, and acquitted the defendant A and the defendant B, on the ground that it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged only with the prosecutor’s office and the first public trial statement.

The sentence (5 million won of a fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant C is too unhued and unreasonable.

Defendant

B In addition to the fact that the defendant C did not give a perjury, the court below convicted the defendant C of this part of the charges even though it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant C instigated the defendant C to give a perjury, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The above evidence revealed that Defendant B had kidd a cre in the middle crepan in which he wanted to re-enter the K real estate, and H had directly observed the face of the upper Defendant A’s shoulder in front of the door, which is consistent with H, M, and L’s statement, and in light of the internal structure of the K real estate, Defendant B failed to properly witness the fact that the upper Defendant A had pushed down a part of the Defendant A’s body. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing ( imprisonment for August, 200, 2 years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C In this regard, there is no question as to whether the Defendant C, before the K real estate literature, had directly observed the face of the Defendant C who was not the Defendant A.