Among those, the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant A shall be reversed.

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant A and B, the fact that Defendant A prepared and delivered a letter of public accusation against Defendant A and each of the above statements clearly stating that “When Defendant D orders Defendant A and B to perform the construction work of KRW 2.8 billion, Defendant A and B shall also take the recording tape without threatening or threatening Defendant D,” and Defendant B also stated in the court of original instance that “Defendant A had a head of the Gun no longer than D while carrying out the recording tape, Defendant A had a head of the Gun, and that Defendant A urged B to request construction with Defendant A, even though it may be recognized that Defendant A and B conspired to commit a crime of attacking Defendant D, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court made a different judgment.

B. As to Defendant D, E’s perjury, perjury, perjury, and Defendant A’s perjury, Defendant A’s perjury, and Defendant B’s perjury, Defendant E (i.e., “on the reversal of the prosecutor’s statement and (ii) would have the expansion of livestock wastewater room worth KRW 10 billion in return for the reversal of the prosecutor’s statement,” each of the above perjury was found, and Defendant E made a statement that “each of the above orders was prepared by Defendant A and B under the direction of Defendant D in return for the reversal of the statement in consultation with Defendant D.” The lower court and the lower court stated that “The co-defendant C made a true statement at the prosecutor’s office, and reversed the prosecutor’s statement at the prosecutor’s office in compliance with the direction of Defendant A and the lower court,” in light of the following: “If Defendant A and B did not make a statement at the prosecutor’s office in relation to the instant case, it would have the aforementioned charges be written,” and each of the above evidence is written in collusion with Defendant E.