A. In the lower judgment, the Defendant testified that he had experienced at the time of alternative compliance with the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant constituted perjury is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Sentencing, even if the Defendant was found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, perjury is established when a witness makes a false statement, and at this time, a false statement means a statement against his/her memory, not that of the objective fact, but that of the fact that he/she has experienced.

Therefore, if a witness gives an answer to the purport that he/she is aware of the fact that the witness does not know well, or that he/she does not grasp the detailed contents of the examination, or that he/she does not associate with it, he/she has made a false statement against his/her memory in any case and constitutes perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do57, Sept. 9, 1986; 81Do118, Jun. 23, 1981). The fact established by a final judgment of this case is not bound by a court in another civil or criminal case, etc., but is not a flexible evidence, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3956, Jul. 23, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the health stand in this case and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the facts that the defendant has made a false statement against his/her own testimony can be recognized as well.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

(1) B shall be April 13, 2018.