A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant had not instigated F to give false testimony for the purpose of undermining D’s conspiracy. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant did not report false facts about D to investigation agencies, and did not intend to commit false accusation.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the testimony of the J alone alone was insufficient to reverse the recognition, comprehensively taking account of the evidence written out in the summary of the evidence in the lower judgment, the lower court found the facts charged on the grounds that the charge of perjury was sufficiently recognized and the facts charged on October 14, 2015 were insufficient to reverse the recognition.

2) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement by the first instance court witness in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance trial.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of additional examination of evidence by the time when the appellate trial is closed down, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the judgment made by the appellate court, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 200 June 14, 2012).