2) Defendant (1) did not have any motive for misunderstanding the facts. Defendant’s testimony is inconsistent with other witnesses’ statements and rather accords with the truth.

Even so, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant issued a perjury.

may be appointed by a person.

① At the Defendant’s request, the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ghana 133734 asserted that “F was in custody of H’s bamboo at his/her own warehouse and did not purchase the said bamboo.”

On the other hand, H issues a tax invoice for the performance of transaction with respect to the tax invoice issued with the supply of the above bamboo.

On the other hand, the argument that it was merely received (96~98 of the investigation record). D stated to the effect that if a tax invoice was issued at the time, H may claim the price of the goods for the entire goods of H using it (23 pages of the investigation record). The above court declared a judgment accepting H’s claim based on the statement, etc. of the tax invoice, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

In light of these circumstances, it seems that there was no practical benefit to distinguish between whether the tax invoice was issued under the explicit agreement of the parties, and whether H was sent by registered mail through the issuance of a group of stocks during the deliberation of D.

In other words, there was no motive for perjury to the defendant present as a witness of H at the time.

It is difficult to see it.

(2) H shall regard the tax invoice delivered to D in the course of prosecutor's investigation.