The part concerning Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years,

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the judgment of the second instance, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the judgment of the first instance on April 23, 2018) in the crime of perjury, the act of aiding and abetting the perjury should exist. The Defendant did not have any awareness and intent to instigate the perjury at the time of division into dialogue with the joint Defendant B, and the joint Defendant B did not have any intention and did not have a resolution to commit the crime of aiding and abetting the perjury. In addition, in order to be recognized as the crime of aiding and abetting, the contents of the teacher must reach the degree of a resolution to commit a certain crime. The Defendant’s joint Defendant B did not expect the testimony to the effect that “the joint Defendant B would jointly engage in the business.” As the Defendant was unable to expect the testimony at the time of demanding the Defendant’s joint Defendant B to make a statement to the effect that “the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a crime of perjury was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles or which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment of the lower judgment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The remaining Defendants (unfair sentencing against the judgment of the court below of first instance)’s sentence of first instance judgment against the Defendants (Defendant B: one year of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment) is unfair because it is too unreasonable (Defendant C withdraws from the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date).

Article 44 (2) of the Public Prosecutor (Violation of Acts and Subordinate Statutes against Defendant A) (Article 32 (1) 7 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry) requires confiscation of game products owned or occupied by a person who has exchanged game outcomes in violation of Article 32 (1) 7 of the same Act, and profits generated by such criminal act and property derived from criminal proceeds, and when confiscation is impossible.