The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant stated that 40 million won including all legal expenses was spent without sufficiently understanding the purport of questioning about facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the meaning of the answer, and did not make a false statement contrary to memory by exaggerationing the attorney advisory fee of KRW 11 million actually paid for perjury.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, etc., and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges in this case on the ground that the following facts constitute false facts contrary to memory and the intention of perjury is recognized, by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances such as the purport of questioning about attorney advisory fees, meaning of the fact that the Defendant stated, the Defendant’s knowledge and experience in litigation costs, and the method and frequency of questioning, etc. in the summary of evidence of the judgment.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, the instant case is intended.