A. In light of the fact that the defendant made a clear statement from the police that "B was at the time when C was a witness," and that C and G have testified that he had been witnessed, it can be recognized that the defendant had made a false testimony in court even though he had been directly present at the time when B was a witness, such as the police statement, even though he had a witness, and that he had a witness at the time when B was a witness, the court below erred by mistake of facts, incomplete deliberation, and violation of the rules of evidence.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles lies in the prosecutor’s burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant.

Even if the interests of the defendant should be judged as the interests of the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the Defendant’s statement by the police officer’s statement submitted by the prosecution as evidence in the Daegu District Court Port Branch Branch 2018 Go-Ma130, a direct evidence as to this part of the facts charged.

In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of the court below admitted by the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles due to the misconception of facts or the incomplete hearing as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is justified.