A. In spite of the fact that the Defendant had instigated E with perjury, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the imprisonment for eight months and two years of suspension of execution, and the community service order 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged that there was no perjury, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges against the Defendant, considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the fact that the Defendant led to a confession of all the facts charged at the second date of the prosecution investigation and the lower court’s second date, and the content of E’s statement.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s commission of perjury, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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