The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant’s notice was merely an expression or evaluation of opinion.

B. The prosecutor bears the responsibility to prove false facts as to whether the funeral hall of the complainant and the funeral hall of the complainant included N in the list of transferred money and the list of transferred money, and the judgment of the court below which admitted U U’s oral statement in the court below and the abstract materials of the name of conversion as evidence of guilt by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, on the ground that the defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal of this case, and stated in detail the judgment. In light of the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. 1) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to the Defendant’s assertion that the burden of proof is the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail. In light of the records and closely comparing the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit. 2) In the case of a complaint by an agent under Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the part of the statement made by the complainant, it is sufficient to prove that the right of representation was granted by the lawful complainant, and there is no special method (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do4595, Jun.