All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were aware of, or had an intentional intent to, a false statement

Therefore, perjury is not established.

B. Even if it is found guilty against the Defendants of unfair sentencing, in light of the following: (a) Defendant A testified in a circumstance in which it is impossible to verify accurate factual relations because he was present as a witness during his prison life and did not confirm the contents of the examination; (b) Defendant B believed and stated the contents of the notice of credit transfer sent by E as it is; and (c) the Defendants had economic difficulties in the course of returning to society after his prison life and life after his prison life, the sentence (five million won of each fine) imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Offense of perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath under the Act makes a statement contrary to his/her memory. Thus, even if his/her statement is inconsistent with objective facts, he/she shall not be held as perjury until he/she is informed of whether the testimony goes against the witness memory (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do80, Dec. 13, 198; 2005Do903, Jul. 28, 2005). Meanwhile, in perjury, the meaning of the perception that the content of the statement goes against his/her memory, and in cases where a witness makes a statement without the awareness that it goes against his/her memory or because his/her memory is unclear, perjury is not established (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1050, Jul. 8, 1986; 9Do425, Sept. 28, 1993; 1).