2. The defendant's crime of perjury in this case is likely to make it difficult to discover substantial truth and undermine the national judicial function, so strict measures are needed.

Examining the record of the examination of the witness in this case, the defendant seems to have consistently made a false statement even though he had several opportunities to correct his false statements at the time.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant has recognized all of the crimes of this case in the court of the court below when it comes to the court of the court below, and the equality in the case that the judgment has been rendered simultaneously with the crime of fraud, etc. which has already become final and conclusive, and the defendant's perjury

As above, the sentencing factors favorable to the defendant have also been comprehensively considered in light of the original judgment and the sentencing conditions that can be newly considered in the trial compared with the original judgment are not changed.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

(However, since it is obvious that the term "fine" of the lower court's third page is a clerical error in imprisonment, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.