A. Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) was the representative director of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Management Company”) entrusted with the management of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant building”) by the Songpa-gu Seoul building E (hereinafter “the management unit of the instant building”), and Defendant A merely instructed and supervised the G and his spouse, and H (hereinafter “G side”) of the instant building on the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B) Defendant B, the head of Defendant B’s headquarters, was not present at the meeting on March 10, 2010 with AC in charge of the instant construction, and even if he participated in domestic affairs, he participated in the instant construction solely on the fact that he participated in the said meeting.

It cannot be seen that G did not allow the construction of the instant case to G, and such statements as stated in the facts charged cannot be viewed as false statements contrary to memory.

2) The Defendant’s statement by misunderstanding the legal principles cannot be deemed as a false statement because it is merely an incidental opinion on the legal and subjective assessment of the witness’s name as to the objective facts experienced, and even if there is a somewhat little error or inconsistency in this regard, perjury cannot be deemed to be established.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 3 million) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact, the Defendants made a false statement contrary to memory even though G knew that it was impossible to sell weddings due to the restriction on the Act on the Promotion of Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”) on the instant building without knowing that G entered into a lease agreement on the instant building without knowing that it was impossible for G to sell weddings.

2) The lower court puts the Defendants with an unfair sentencing.