A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Daegu District Court case No. 2017 Godan5648; and (b) testified to the effect that “A lent 400 million won to the Defendant’s money”; (c) 200 million won out of the above 400 million won is the Defendant’s money; (d) the lower court determined that the entire testimony was the Defendant’s money, but there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the entire testimony was an perjury; and (e) the sentence

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on the ground that (i) the Defendant deposited money into the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, and (ii) the Defendant did not receive interest on the said money from C or B, (iii) the Defendant did not know, and (iv) if the Defendant borrowed money to B and received repayment, it would normally be used for one’s own cost of living, etc.; and (v) lending money to the Defendant without knowledge to C is an exceptional case.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of judgment

Even if 200 million won out of 400 million won lent to C, as alleged by the Defendant, was actually the money of the Defendant, the testimony to the effect that “C lent the Defendant’s money of KRW 400 million” is a false statement contrary to the Defendant’s memory as a whole.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake shall not be accepted.

B. The determination of perjury by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing interferes with the State’s appropriate exercise of judicial authority and substantial truth.