A. As to the charge of perjury 1, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as to the charge of perjury (the defendant A) merely stated the facts that he had been aware of at the time of the testimony of this case, and without making a false statement contrary to memory, and thereby misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as to the attempted fraud (the defendant A) on different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles. (2) As to the charge of attempted fraud (the defendant et al.)

B. Each sentence (two years of suspended execution in June, and two years of suspended execution in April) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of suspended execution in April) are excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On September 6, 2012, at around 15:30 on September 6, 2012, Defendant A appeared as a witness of the counterclaim and taken an oath against Defendant A, at the court No. 604 of the Seoul Northern District Court (No. 604), the above court 2011Gahap1034, and 11041 (the main lawsuit).

Defendant

A, Defendant B’s agent, who started to operate the G, lent a less amount of KRW 50-1 million from January 2004 to June 2008, which was less than KRW 50-7 million, which was much more than KRW 500-7 million, and is true.

“I reply to “I,” and the above agents present the bank account statement between the Defendants and the Defendant H,” they are witnesses (Defendant A) and their ancillarys, Nonparty H, and Defendant B’s bank account statement, and all the details of remittance to the Plaintiff exceed 40 times.