A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant made a false statement as a result of his memory and made a false statement, and did not have any perjury. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the court below on the same grounds as the instant appeal. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail. The court below acknowledged the following circumstances as duly admitted and investigated by the evidence: ① the witness I, among the construction works of the instant Bara, was present at the court of appeal at the court of appeal and stated that “D is requested to seal work, and specific construction instructions are received from D”; ② the Defendant was present at the court of appeal at the court of appeal at the court of appeal at the level of Gwangju District Court 2017, 3127, 2017, and 3134 (Counterclaim) (Counterclaim) of the civil case with D; the Defendant’s testimony on this part was settled in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, and thus, the Defendant’s testimony on this part was not concluded at the court of appeal at the court of appeal 2015.

It is difficult to see the Defendant’s new construction process and new construction process of this case’s lending, such as continuing to reverse the Defendant’s statement in accordance with the data presented by the investigative agency on the process of new construction of the instant lending and the subject of the burden of construction costs, etc.