The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of F and E, one of them, are contrary to the common sense and contradictory to each other, and their respective statements are not believed as they are in good faith in light of the following: (a) G’s statement, a police officer dispatched to the site, is in conflict with the contents of the documents arrested in flagrant offender, etc.; (b) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant made a testimony contrary to his memory, as there is no evidence as to whether the Defendant had been present; and (c) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant gave a testimony contrary to his memory, even though F, E, and police officers assaulted Defendant and Defendant C on March 16, 2012, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances: (i) to (iv) the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, as described in the facts charged in this case; and (ii) the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted, on the ground that the lower court fully found the Defendant guilty of the perjury, by making a false statement contrary to his memory.

① During the investigation stage of the instant case and each court of the instant case, Suwon District Court consistently stated to the effect that “C on March 16, 2012, 2012, sent out by a police officer due to the disturbance from Part, and C was at the scene of a police officer called the victim E while the police officer called the victim E, and C was at the scene of the victim’s face.” In light of the fact that the police officer called out upon receiving a report of 112, the victims made a false statement from the beginning.