The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not make a false statement contrary to his memory, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion comprehensively admitted and examined the evidence, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant: (i) around December 28, 2013, acknowledged the operation of fruits and diagnosis and treatment sets to C; (b) around December 28, 2013; and (c) divorced with a female living together with the Defendant on the wind that misleads the blood pressure of the Defendant, following the Defendant’s intention to enter into force on September 8, 2016.

10 million won and total amount of 200 million won are changed as compensation for the same as a woman living together, on the condition that no criminal charge is filed against the negligence injury and the operation of medical table. The judgment of the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2016No. 3575), which was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 million won, on the ground that the sexual function of the male and female living together with the male and female who were divorced. Since the father of the father was a senior police officer, there were many high-ranking police officers in the police, which would be accused of the police due to negligence injury and violation of the Medical Service Act if the demand is accepted and if the demand is not accepted, it was attempted to withdraw KRW 200 million." The judgment of the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2016 No. 2016, 2016Do20290), which became final and conclusive on February 8, 2017 by demanding the victim to have his or her full capacity to have his or her father living together with the investigation agency and the defendant.