All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. On July 12, 2012, there was no fact that the Defendant prepared a report on the removal or destruction of the building with the Seongbuk-gu Office as well as the fact-finding and sentencing.

Nevertheless, on July 22, 2015, K appeared as a witness of the judgment on property damage against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da3235) on July 22, 2015, and stated to the effect that the Defendant prepared a report on the removal or destruction of the building on July 12, 2012 along with the Defendant, it constitutes perjury. Therefore, the Defendant’s accusation against the content of the above statement cannot be deemed as a false accusation.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and sentencing) 1) The seal affixed on the report on removal or destruction of the instant building appears to be not the head of the Defendant’s seal impression. However, while K was present as a witness of the instant case and made a statement, it was not considerably important whether the seal is the head of the Defendant’s seal impression at the time of appearance and making a statement, and there was an important issue as to whether the Defendant’s seal was affixed directly, and therefore, K used the seal in light of the purport

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court: (a) held that K affixed a seal of “the letter of seal reduction” by the Defendant;

With regard to the statement, the defendant did not file a false complaint against K for perjury, and the defendant found the defendant not guilty of this part. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As above, the lower court should be convicted of the part that rendered a not guilty on the part of the lower judgment by misunderstanding the legal doctrine, and considering the fact that the Defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant suffered damages, such as having been present at an investigative agency and a court for a considerable period of time, the lower court’s above sentence is too un

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court’s judgment.