A. There is no fact that the Defendants made a false statement contrary to their memory, such as the original trial, and there is no fact of perjury.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, six months of imprisonment, six months of suspended sentence, and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts in relation to the same facts in relation to the relevant legal doctrine is a flexible evidence. Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts in question are inconsistent with the facts, barring any special circumstance that it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the relevant criminal trial, and this is also true in the judgment on perjury (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009; 201Do5546, Feb. 9, 2012). 2) The Defendants made a statement among the witness of the lower court that they seem to correspond to the facts charged by D to the purport that some of the witness of the lower court made the Defendant 3, by making a statement to the effect that the part of the witness of the lower court fell into the facts charged by F, and that the Defendant C was unable to prove that there was no physical contact between D and F, thereby failing to prove the content of the facts charged.

However, in light of the above legal principles, D is recognized as having made a false statement contrary to its memory to the purport that D had not observed it but did not have any physical contact, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, D had a ambling dispute with F, and D had ambened F twice by drinking the part of F, and D had ambened F more than twice.

The Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

① The instant perjury is related to F and G, the case related to the instant perjury.