The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not obstruct B to make a false statement, and the defendant had a talk at the time of family affairs.

Even if the crime of escape was not established by abusing the right of defense, the crime was not established.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserted that the judgment of the court below is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the judgment of the court below in detail. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

Of the judgment of the court below, the defendant refused the police officer's demand for the measurement of drinking.

Although there are parts recognized as "the defendant did not have received a request for the measurement of alcohol at the time as alleged by the defendant, this does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. B. It is desirable to respect the lower court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering that there is no change of circumstances in the matters subject to sentencing conditions after the lower judgment was rendered, and that the Defendant denies and did not oppose the instant crime up to the trial, even considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.