The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. G’s statement consistent with the summary of the grounds for appeal is not consistent, and it is inconsistent with K’s statement and it is not reliable as it is. The Defendant’s statement to the same purport as partially recognizing the facts charged is the statement about the previous facts charged before the alteration, and the remaining witness’s statement does not directly state that the Defendant made the statement like the description of the facts charged. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that there was a fact that the Defendant made the statement like the description of the facts charged at the time stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the allegation of mistake of facts, and the lower court consistently stated that “A around September 2012, at the court of the lower court, had the Defendant stated that “A had made the same remarks as that indicated in the facts charged to G” (the trial record 133, 13, 136 pages), and the investigation agency also stated to the same effect that “A defendant, prior to filing a complaint against the Defendant for a viewing, frequently, at the place where he gather, he stated that “I me shall belong to and sell in E restaurant or China,” and that “I me sell in Korea,” and that “I see that I x as recorded in the facts charged,” the Defendant stated in the lower court’s consistent statement that “I x was sold in E restaurant or in Korea” (the investigation record 202, 203 page 203), and that “I 97,” as stated in the facts charged, was also written in the lower court’s judgment.

“A statement.”