A. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is part of the rent and profit that he/she received from E on December 11, 2013, not for delivery to G, but for delivery to G, and thus, did not deliver it.

Even if embezzlement cannot be seen as embezzlement, and as long as embezzlement is not established, the judgment of the court below that recognized perjury is not established, and there is an error of law that affects the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a year, two years of probation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the criminal intent of embezzlement and perjury can be sufficiently recognized. Therefore, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① On December 11, 2013, the witness J was at the site of E’s delivery of KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and was directly engaged in the horses requesting G to deliver KRW 100 million to G.

In fact, E presented a letter to the effect that he sent KRW 100 million to G on the same day upon the J’s recommendation (Evidence No. 29, page 739 of the evidence record). ② From August 2013, E was investigated into suspicion, such as public conflict with G, etc., from around August 2013, the Defendant was constantly receiving a request for the return of KRW 100 million from G, and it appears to have been notified to E. However, E appears to have been a superior position to pay KRW 100,00 to G for an agreement, and even if it appears that it was necessary to deliver it on behalf of the Defendant (Evidence No. 1108 of the evidence record).

(3) E shall directly comply with G in the course of interrogation of a case, such as conflict, etc.