2. The judgment members made a statement at the investigative agency on the fact that they received money from Defendant E and K and prosecuted Defendant E and K. The court denied the crime, and the Defendants conspired the members to give testimony to deny the receipt of money and valuables. It is recognized that the Defendants committed the crime in a planned manner and interfere with substantive truth, and that the Defendants were convicted of perjury by the Defendants.

However, despite the Defendants’ perjury, the Defendants were found guilty in the criminal trial against Defendant E and K in spite of the Defendants’ perjury; the Defendants’ confession of the instant crime against the Defendants; Defendant E was detained in one month without good health due to the aged 70 years old; Defendant E was detained in the lower court’s detention; the Defendants did not have any particular criminal record other than three times of fine; and the Defendants’ motive, means and methods of the instant crime; and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as the motive, conditions after the instant crime, do not seem to be unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.