A. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) fraud, there is no fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

The victim tried to perform construction work directly to E, and the defendant did not participate in the construction work.

B) Of the facts charged as to perjury, the part of the charge that the defendant stated to the effect that he did not participate in the Jeju-do Housing Corporation (Article 2-4, 5), and 6 of the facts charged of the case of "2016 Man-Ma801" and the part of the charge of "2016 Man-Ma5768") is true, and the part of the charge that the defendant stated differently from objective facts (Article 2-1, 2-2, 3, and 7 of the facts charged of "2016 Man-Ma801") shall not be deemed to have any intention to prove that the defendant stated as such the remainder that he did not memory due to brain stroke or brain stroke, etc.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The prosecutor (the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair).

2. The Defendant argued to the same effect as the lower court in determining the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine by the Defendant.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion on the grounds that it could sufficiently recognize the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of detailed circumstances as stated in the judgment below, which are acknowledged by the evidence in the column

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and duly admitted and investigated evidence at the court below’s trial, the court below may fully recognize the defendant’s fraud and perjury.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so argued.