The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the F’s doctrine, the Defendant stated that “the check of replacement of a post-ricker” was “the check” at the time of visiting F’s house, and did not mean “gas inspection.”

In domestic affairs, even if the defendant called the gas inspection and the F opened a door, it could be known that the defendant was not a gas inspection at the time of the purchase of the article by F. Therefore, there is no relation between the defendant's words as the gas inspection and the purchase of the article by F.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant knew false or exaggerated facts or has induced or transacted with consumers by using deceptive methods.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant alleged that the lower court did not say that it was a gas inspection, and the lower court clearly stated that “The Defendant visited F to the latter by means of the replacement of the latter pen.”

One of the arguments is that the defendant has consistently inspected the gas in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.

on the other hand, the defendant had opened a door and requested the price after he voluntarily replaced the pen.

In light of the fact that F makes a statement and the fact that F seems to have no reason to gather the defendant due to the falsehood of fraud, the defendant's assertion is rejected on the ground that it is difficult to believe the defendant's assertion, and the defendant was guilty.

2) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is deemed significantly unfair, the appellate court reverses without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment.