A. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the instant agricultural machinery did not have the time limit for lease, and the lessee of another agricultural machinery died, but did not recover the agricultural machinery from the wife AK, and the lessee of another agricultural machinery sold the agricultural machinery to a third party, but purchased more than one agricultural machinery from the village joint fund, the Defendants were likely to be mistaken that G actually sold the agricultural machinery owned by the village in permanent form of lease.

따라서 피고인 B가 선행 형사사건에 증인으로 출석하여 ‘G으로부터 마을 소유의 농기계를 샀다’ 고 진술하였더라도 이를 기억에 반하는 허위의 진술로 볼 수 없고, 피고인 A의 부탁으로 피고인 B가 위와 같은 증언하였더라도 위증을 교사한 것으로 볼 수 없다.

2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court by the prosecutor is too unfluent and unfair (a prosecutor explicitly withdraws his assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the first trial date).2.

A. Determination on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The facts established in a criminal judgment as to the same factual basis are valuable evidence, and thus, it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the relevant criminal trial.

Unless there are special circumstances acknowledged, facts contrary to the above cannot be acknowledged (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349 delivered on December 24, 2009). 2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it cannot be found that there is any special circumstance that is difficult to adopt a judgment on the facts of the above criminal trial otherwise finalized.