위증
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (misunderstanding the facts) was stated in the same manner that the co-owners H and seller G were prepared on the same day as the certificate sales contract No. 1 and the certificate sales contract No. 4 of the No. 4 of the No. 1. G, in particular, G, stating in detail the circumstances in which the above two contracts were prepared, thereby having credibility in the statement, and participating in the sales contract as an employee of a certified broker office operated by the defendant.
In full view of the fact that K made two statements that correspond to the statements and substitutions of G and H by stating that “in the middle of gold, it was written twice”, it is reasonable to deem that the above two contracts were made on the same day, and therefore, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant made a false statement against memory as stated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.
2. The lower court, based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant: (a) from the investigative agency to the lower court, prepared a sales contract between G and H and I on March 21, 2008; (b) the first sale contract was signed between G and H and the seller; (c) there was an impediment of G in the buyer column; and (d) there was no accurate entry of H’s address in the joint buyer column; and (e) on April 11, 2008, the seller G and I’s seal impression stamp affixed each page on April 11, 2008; and (d) the address of H was changed to the first sale contract (Evidence No. 101, 701, Dong-gu, Daejeon); and (e) the Defendant consistently stated that the first sale contract was replaced to the sale and purchase contract of the said apartment on March 21, 2008; and (e) the Defendant reported the replacement of the first sale and purchase contract of the said apartment on March 21, 2008.