A. Defendant 1) was testified to the effect that there was no misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant did not personally contact I, and that this was consistent with the Defendant’s memory, so the Defendant did not have a criminal intent.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same assertion in the lower court as to the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances properly explained by the court below in comparison with records, it can be recognized that the defendant has a criminal intent to commit perjury.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

Examining the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and changes in the instant case, even considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable because it is hot or unbrupted.

All of the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are rejected.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.