A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor against Defendant A (the mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle), the fact that Defendant A made a false statement contrary to his memory can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B. As to Defendant B, the sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was a false statement contrary to memory, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine with respect to Defendant A.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is justified. Contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, prosecutor's argument about Defendant A is without merit.

3. The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant B by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances to Defendant B, as seen above, the Defendant B’s punishment was imposed.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, in full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as Defendant B’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unfasible and the scope of discretion is reasonable.