A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. As to the part of the facts charged in this case that the Defendant made a false statement with the purport that B demanded or consented to enter into a so-called “business contract”, the Defendant did not make a false statement (hereinafter “first assertion”) since he stated in accordance with B’s intent understood by himself.

(2) As to the part of the instant facts charged that the Defendant made a false statement on the content that the Defendant entered into a sales contract stating KRW 90 million among the instant facts charged, the Defendant merely stated to the effect that the contract, including KRW 90,000,00,000, was written, in the course of making a statement that the Defendant entered into a contract and entered into a contract by confusion with the conclusion of the contract due to a tension witness atmosphere and lack of legal knowledge.

(hereinafter “Second Claim”). In other words, even though the Defendant did not make a statement contrary to his memory and did not intend to commit a crime of perjury, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As the lower court’s determination on the allegation No. 1 in its circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as the Defendant did not know the meaning of preparing the so-called letter of contract with B due to the absence of communication ability, was aware at least of the circumstance that B did not reach a normal agreement on the preparation of the business contract with E, and in light of the decision-making ability of B that can be confirmed in the record, the Defendant was understood as having requested B to enter into the business contract, or he was aware of the request of B and approved it.