A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, did not compel G to make a false testimony on the date of preparation of the inventory report (hereinafter “instant inventory report”).

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows.

G’s statement that made a false testimony at court by the Defendant’s instruction is very specific and objective in line with the contents of the inventory status of this case, the practices of transaction, and the progress of related civil cases.

In addition, G is sufficiently believed that it has been under the responsibility to be punished by perjury.

The defendant also recognized that the inventory status of this case was prepared after July 2014 by the prosecution.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant instigated G to make a false testimony contrary to his memory.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) In full view of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's judgment, the above facts finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

The Defendant filed a related civil suit against D in the name of C (Seoul District Court 2014Gadan 4731) and instigated G to commit this case’s perjury at the appellate court of the said civil suit, accompanied by the inventory status of the instant case, and attempted to deceive the court by filing an application for change of the purport of claiming for additional payment of 9,307,780 won for unjust enrichment against D.

The defendant is not entitled to fraud of the above lawsuit.