All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The Defendants did not make a statement contrary to their memory.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendants asserts to the effect that the testimony made by the Defendants in the Daegu District Court Decision 201DaMa1492 is true, on the grounds that there was a defect in the leakage occurring in 80 or 90% of the 50A pipe 287 body of 287 body supplied to E, and thus, there was a defect in the leakage.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendants seems to have testified differently from the facts and to have been aware of this.

Therefore, the court below's finding the Defendants guilty of all the charges is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts, such as the defendants' assertion.

Defendant

A The contents of the statement and the statement of transactions (Evidence 41, 42 pages) written by A are consistent with the contents asserted by F, the complainant, and are not consistent with the contents of the defendants' testimony.

Defendant

A’s statement (not more than 68 pages of investigation records) made by the police in relation to the perjury case on July 8, 2011 by the Defendants is not consistent with the existing arguments of the Defendants.

Defendant

B In the police, the lower court stated that “I would know that I would like to have access to cumulative material and that I would not know that I would like to have access to the material of the parts because there is no machine adjoining to Aluminium. I would like to have access to the material of the parts, and that I would like to have access to the product and receive it again.”

If so, the Defendants were working.