A. (1) The court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts since the defendant's wife stated that the defendant's wife was not a nominal name, and the defendant's wife testified against the defendant's memory.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, not by the simple Section of the witness’s testimony. Where the meaning of testimony can be understood either in itself or in a multilateral way, the meaning of the testimony should be clearly determined after considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances surrounding the testimony in question, etc.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the facts charged in the case No. 2013 Go-Ma1570, which the defendant testified, are that C had the defendant engage in the marriage brokerage business by lending the name of the marriage broker to the defendant. The defendant is present and take an oath as a witness, and according to the contents investigated by the investigative agency or the statement of several persons who entered into a contract with the witness, the defendant (C) or F seems to have been actually lent only the name. The prosecutor's question, "if the defendant (C) and F provided all names, the name of the defendant (C) and F," and "if so, the F actually operated the marriage brokerage business as claimed by the witness, the name of F.