However, the Defendant stated in the petition of appeal that he filed an appeal against the whole judgment of conviction by the lower court, and the grounds for appeal are only erroneous and misapprehension of the legal principles as to perjury among the conviction part, so the dismissal part of the above indictment was separately finalized.

Therefore, it should be excluded from the object of this Court's judgment, and it should be judged only on the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is not perjury since the Defendant testified as to the fact that he was assaulted to all four persons (J, D, F, and E) who infringed on the Defendant’s house at the time of the appeal.

Even if it is objective truth that J, D, F, and E assault and assault the Defendant at a low risk of having the Defendant, and that F, and E speak are true, the Defendant was subject to non-discriminatory treatment, such as being fit from the four above persons in the state of algohy from D, with their face, and being algohyed.

Since there was a circumstance that could be sufficiently mistaken for the defendant, there was no intention of perjury.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention of perjury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal as to the above part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected this decision.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant can fully recognize the fact of perjury by making a false testimony contrary to memory as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, as alleged by the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.