A. Since the prosecutor did not clearly understand the questions of the prosecutor claiming a mistake of facts and made an erroneous answer, the defendant did not have the intention of perjury. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the penalty amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not know whether C, at the time of the argument that E and the Defendant’s husband and wife and the Defendant’s husband and wife (Defendant and C) were “any year during which to report the pension at the time of reporting the pension at the time of the lower time” to E in the Incheon District Court 2014 and 2608, at the time of the examination of the witness of the Incheon District Court 2014 and 2608, “the complainant(E)” will be discarded to the Defendant (C) and the complainant (E).

The term "the year in which a report on a pension for the elderly was filed" was read as "the year in which it was reported."

(2) such a fact is required to be

“I have testified to the effect that “I do not have any such question,” and “I shall not have any question as described in the facts constituting the offense of the prosecutor thereafter.”

It can be recognized that the Defendant testified “” and accordingly, at the time when the Defendant testified as above, either erred in the purpose of examination or dismissed such testimony.

Since there seems to be no intention, the defendant's intention of perjury is recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. There is no change of circumstances to consider the sentencing after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, and considering the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, even considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant on the grounds of appeal, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.