The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the defendant testified with any content different from the testimony of the Seoul Northern District Court case before the court of this case (U.S. District Court Decision 2009Da3247). However, the testimony of this case is erroneous in finding the date. The contents of the testimony of this case are stated in the state of immediate miscellaneousness, so it is consistent with the substantive relationship. Thus, the judgment of the court below which judged the testimony of this case as a perjury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant was present at the court of Seoul Northern District Court 103 on September 19, 2008 to take an oath as a witness of the case of embezzlement, etc. of 2008DaMa1414 (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court case”), and testified that “the fact that the certificate of seal imprint was kept in the depository around December 28, 2006 (hereinafter “first testimony”) was kept in the custody of D’s certificate of seal imprint at the depository around December 28, 2006.” ② The above Seoul Northern District Court case was prosecuted as a charge of forging the certificate of loan under the name E outside the indictment, and was finally affirmed and finalized by the appellate court (Seoul Northern District Court 2009No8294) through the appellate court (Seoul Northern District Court 2009No134).

(3) On July 8, 2010, when considering the fourth bottom of the judgment of the appellate court of the Seoul Northern District Court case (the same court 2009No134), the defendant (A) prepared the loan certificate of this case and affixed the seal imprint certificate of D and delivered it to E. The defendant's statement at the court of the original instance was also in custody of D's seal imprint certificate of December 28, 2006. Thus, the defendant's statement at the court of the original instance is also in support of such probability. (3) However, on July 8, 2010, the defendant explained to the purport that it is "."