The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The first instance court found that there is insufficient proof as to the part of the facts charged, and found the Defendant not guilty only on the ground that the Defendant guilty of the remaining Malicious perjury, which constitutes an inclusive crime.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the first instance judgment, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

In accordance with the principle of non-appeal of appeal, the part of acquittal in the above reasoning was transferred to this court, but it was not subject to deliberation and judgment of this court because it was out of the object of attack and defense between the parties, this court decides to comply with the conclusion of innocence in the grounds that the court of first instance issued, and only decides the guilty part of the judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any difference between D and D, i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

From the standpoint of the defendant, the defendant could be suspected of having been raped to D, so there was no intention to make a false accusation against the defendant.

The Defendant did not forge the entry and departure seal of the Republic of Korea, the D’s receipt, and the e-mail output of the Pacific airline.

The testimony of the defendant is not false. The testimony of the defendant is not false. The testimony of the defendant is not false if it is found that there is a little misunderstanding or exaggeration in the purport of the response to the value judgment or legal evaluation (Rape and confinement related to rape), that is, only the statement related to hospital, Hong Kong travel (the statement related to hospital, Hong Kong travel), that is, the forgery of private documents, and that the crime of uttering of an investigation document is guilty.

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. (i) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was not in conflict with D, and rather, the Defendant’s body photographed from D.