A. In fact, the Defendant did not agree to re-purchase and guarantee the principal of H, and even though he did not interfere with H on November 29, 201, there was no perjury.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of this case by taking advantage of the unfavorable part of the testimony of H without consistency.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, in the case of Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010Kadan2326, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012No297, Sept. 11, 2012, the appellate court of the case of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Claims No. 2010 or 2326, H made a statement to the effect that the principal would be damaged by the Defendant, or whether the principal would be guaranteed is unclear, and there is some contradictions among the statements made by the lower court since the testimony in the case of the above 2010 Godan2326, the facts are acknowledged.

However, the lower court testified to the effect that the testimony was made by a mistake in the following circumstances, namely, ① on November 29, 201, in the instant case No. 2010Kadan2326, which was duly adopted and investigated, that “H did not state that the Defendant guaranteed the principal, and was aware that there was no promise to profit or dividend.” The testimony was made by the prosecutor on July 5, 201 to the effect that “the Defendant guaranteed the principal from the Defendant, and was able to receive dividends according to the amount invested.” The testimony was made in the previous prosecutor’s call, stating that “the Defendant was able to receive dividends according to the amount invested.” Even if the alcohol was done, it is not easily acceptable that it was made at all different from the facts while communicating with the prosecutor, whereas H was investigated by the prosecutor’s office on July 5, 2012.