The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while working as an employee of FF Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Construction”), was performing duties such as lending, selection of a contractor, management of a contractor and on-site, and resolution of civil petitions. D also knew that the Defendant is an employee of FF construction.

Nevertheless, the testimony that the defendant had not been employed as an employee of FFF in the criminal case against the defendant constitutes perjury, and the defendant did not report false facts or did not have any intention to commit a false accusation.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part, and the lower court, based on its reasoning of the judgment, presented the judgment on this issue under the title

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have filed a complaint of perjury for the purpose of having D obtain criminal punishment, notwithstanding the absence of the fact that D had received perjury.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

① The case D testified was a criminal case prosecuted for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Tgu District Court 2008 Gohap643, 707 hereinafter referred to as "transfer criminal case"). The key issue was whether the defendant received money from L to arrange matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions, whether he received wages in return for work as an employee of F Construction, whether he received wages in return for work, and the labor contract made between the defendant and F Construction.