A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant testified at the court of Suwon District Court No. 108 to the effect that D was not involved in a tunnel work at all in the Defendant’s case, such as violation of the Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act against D, 2016 Gohap 327 at the above court (hereinafter “the case subject to perjury”), and that it was not proved to the purport that “the Defendant did not have any participation in the tunnel work at all according to the Defendant’s memory, but did not have any participation in the tunnel work.”

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the criminal defendant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor on March 19, 2015 by a commission of Suwon Branch method for special larceny, etc. on September 17, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2015, and is currently in the current number of punishment, and is in the location to support the wife and two children, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, testified in the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts that D did not testify to the purport that D did not have any participation in the underground excavation tunnel work at all, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, but testified to the purport that D participated as an accomplice, and that D did not take part in the underground excavation tunnel work together with the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have any fact with D when digging out the ground, and that D did not have any witness to directly digging out the ground excavation, and that D did not have any fact of entering the ground excavation or directly digging out the ground excavation, the Defendant testified to the effect that D had no fact of participating in the underground excavation tunnel work at all. The lower court testified on the grounds of its stated reasoning that D had no fact of having participated in the underground excavation tunnel work at all

Since it is interpreted, the defendant participates in the tunneling work of D.