A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Since F had already known the fact that “the Defendant was intending to purchase the land (hereinafter “instant land”) outside Gyeonggi-gun G and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”) with the loan, the testimony of B does not constitute perjury in line with the facts.

And the testimony of B is merely the purport that “F was already aware of the above circumstances”, not a statement about facts.

In addition, when considering the entire testimony of B as a whole, the testimony was made only by stating that “B shall pay not only the balance but also the down payment as a loan secured by the land of this case without any awareness that what at the time is or what is a mistake goes against memory.”

2) The Defendant was a broker in concluding a sales contract with F to the instant land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”)

B is well aware of the content of the specific arrangement because it was entrusted to B with work.

I think, I applied for B as a witness in the Incheon District Court 2014 High Order 7398 Fraud case.

On the day when the witness was examined, the Defendant presented the witness examination that was prepared in advance while moving to the Incheon District Court, along with B residing in the Gyeonggi Yang-gun on the day when the witness was examined, and said that “I would see that I would have made a statement as it was,” but the Defendant stated the false facts as stated in the facts of the lower judgment in contingency in order to ask questions from the defense counsel during the re-examination process.

B. In addition, it is clear that B’s prosecutor’s statement, which corresponds to the facts charged, lacks probative value when seen in light of the contents of the B’s court below and the court below’s legal statement.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2...