Accordingly, only the prosecutor appealed on the part of innocence on the ground of mistake of fact.

Thus, the above guilty portion is also judged in the trial due to the indivisible principle of appeal, but the part is already excluded from the object of the attack and defense between the parties, and it goes beyond the object of the trial (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991; 2008Do8922, Dec. 11, 2008; 2008Do8922, Dec. 11, 2008, etc.). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below should be followed, and it shall not be judged separately in the trial.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistently stated the facts that led to false testimony upon D’s request, and when the investigation was initiated due to the suspicion of perjury, the above statement was reversed.

When considering the fact that the defendant's statement was much more reliable before the commencement of the investigation, the fact that the defendant made a false testimony upon D's request is recognized as stated in the facts charged of this case.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on its reasoning, made it difficult to believe the monetary content with the prosecutorial investigator of H or the Defendant, who is the arbitrae of the Defendant, as it is, and requested the Defendant to request the Defendant to request the witness on October 12, 2015, which was prosecuted for perjury in the case, such as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) (Seoul District Court 2015 J. 324) (Seoul District Court 2015 J. 3324).