A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the trial corporations, including C and E, were additionally dredged when executing D construction. While the Defendant instructed or knew at least he had the intention to do so, it could be recognized that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, as stated in the facts charged, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of perjury among the facts charged in the instant case, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which acquitted the Defendant on the part of the construction supervision conducted at the time when the Defendant was in office as a supervisor, even though it constitutes a crime of preparation of a false qualification document, by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

A. As to the perjury, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not instruct the Defendant for the additional dredging work that was not included in the design of the instant construction work “the overall content of the Defendant’s testimony,” and that at around February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff did not instruct the Defendant to perform the additional dredging work, which was included in the design using the ground line, and did not instruct the Defendant to perform the additional dredging work. At the time of the construction, the lower court did not know that C et al. was about the additional dredging work. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the following grounds alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant instructed C et al. to perform the additional dredging work or was aware that it was about the implementation of the additional dredging work at the time.

In light of the fact that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory in civil procedure, the defendant was acquitted.

The Corporation of this case.