A. Defendant A (De facto mistake and unreasonable sentencing) B is Defendant E (hereinafter “E”)

Since he had directly observed the face of the dispute, the contents of the testimony set forth in B is not false, and the defendant merely stated that he was a true statement experienced to B, but did not state false facts, so it cannot be deemed that he instigated the above evidence. 2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service work, one20 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment) The sentence of the lower court (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court made the aforementioned assertion in the judgment of the lower court as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts. As to this, the lower court made a statement that: (i) the witness E, G, and I of the lower court consented and made a statement that the Defendant and E did not appear at the scene; (ii) the Defendant was making a confession of perjury; (iii) at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant asked to give testimony to the effect that he and E were able to give testimony about 10 days before the testimony; and (iv) at the time of the police investigation, the Defendant and the defense counsel asked to give testimony to the effect that he and E were able to give testimony about the document at the time; and (v) although considering the fact that B refused to give testimony at the court of the lower court due to the relation with the Defendant at the time of the police investigation, it is deemed that there was credibility of the testimony at the investigative agency than the testimony at the court of the lower court made in the presence of the Defendant; and (iv) the Defendant and the defense counsel requested the above testimony in a related criminal case to change or forced B’s testimony as a false statement.