A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the guilty part of the lower judgment), the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price against Defendant C (hereinafter “instant civil lawsuit”).

A) At the time of appearance and testimony as a witness, when the defendant appeared and testified, because the defendant had visited the community service center to obtain a family relation certificate and a resident registration certificate together with B in the past. In the case of a certificate of personal seal impression, the defendant did not memory until a specific document issued was issued by the mixed person, and the certificate of personal seal impression was issued as well, and he should not be evaluated as a false statement contrary to memory. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged against the defendant without sufficient deliberation on the facts, and there is an error of law by misconception of the fact that it affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by misconception of the facts charged against the defendant.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part not guilty in the judgment of the lower court), the Defendant is deemed to be the forest land D in Mineyang-si (hereinafter “instant forest land”).

() The money received from E, his father, the purchase price of the instant real estate purchase price, (the money irrelevant to the apartment purchase price in the name of the Defendant in custody of E, the termination amount of time deposit, and the sales price of the instant apartment held in the name of the Defendant, even though having paid the money borrowed from P, was received KRW 100 million from the above Defendant E and paid as the purchase price of the instant real estate. It is obvious that the Defendant’s statement clearly differs from objective facts and accurately, and that the Defendant’s motive to make a false statement in the instant civil lawsuit is apparent in order to recognize that the instant real estate was owned solely by the Defendant, the facts charged in the instant case are guilty.