2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it may be recognized that the Defendant testified a false fact contrary to memory in the relevant criminal case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① According to Albon Gaphone opening-type photographs, it is confirmed that the Defendant attended the opening of the above store and her opening tape along with B.

② The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency that “B was engaged in business even if he/she started business.” According to the above statement, the Defendant appears to have been in close relation with B prior to the opening of business.

③ The Defendant stated in the investigative agency that “at the time when he met B, he left the real estate brokerage, but has closed thereafter,” and the Defendant’s statement also accords with the statement that “the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s real estate brokerage at the time when he became aware of the Defendant’s real estate at the time when he became aware of the fact,” and the statement that “the Defendant was aware of the real estate brokerage.”

In addition, according to the G's statement, the defendant introduced Busan E apartment to B, etc. upon receiving a request from G to rescue a purchaser of apartment from G on April 2015.

(4) Although the Defendant is different from his/her testimony either because of traffic accidents, aftermathing, etc., or by taking advantage of his/her testimony as stated in the facts charged, he/she may ask questions to the counsel before and after testimony.