The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is close to Defendant A rather than Defendant B, and thus, Defendant B requested false testimony.

In full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant B’s confession made by a false confession and there is no reason to omit Defendant B in the difficult situation; (b) Defendant B’s conviction was pronounced on the part of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement; and (c) Defendant A’s testimony made by witnessing the confession to Defendant B was difficult to believe in view of the surrounding circumstances at the time of witness’s testimony; and (d) Defendant A’s confession has credibility; and (b) Defendant A made a false statement to assist Defendant A to give a perjury; and (c) Defendant A made a false statement contrary to his memory, thereby sufficiently recognizing the fact of perjury; (d) the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine,

2. Examining the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records, it is difficult for the court below to readily conclude that Defendant A’s legal statement was false on the grounds as stated in its reasoning; Defendant B’s motive is not sufficient to induce Defendant A to make a false statement; Defendant A’s preparation process and before and after the preparation of Defendant A’s written statement; Defendant A’s relationship with Defendant A, Defendant B, and H; Defendant A’s self-denunciation time and circumstances; etc.; etc., it is difficult to believe that the confession of Defendant A was made as it is; the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that Defendant A gave a false testimony or that Defendant B

It is not sufficient to conclude it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it is reasonable to find the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.