The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts (defluence) the Defendant was merely a facility director of the instant D Commercial Association from 1996 to March 31, 2011 (hereinafter “instant prosperity”), the Defendant was not in the position of ascertaining whether E sub-leases of the Fmat’s copor (hereinafter “the instant copor”) operated by himself/herself from October to November 201, 201, and did not have any content related to sub-leases from E or the sub-lessees.

Therefore, the defendant did not have made a false statement contrary to his memory.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 6,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment with the contents that the part of Articles 3 through 6, 10, 13, and 15 among the facts charged with perjury of this case, which was prosecuted for a single comprehensive crime in the trial, and this court permitted it, thereby changing the subject of adjudication against the Defendant in the trial. This part of the facts charged and the facts charged with the injury for which the lower court found the Defendant guilty, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. We examine the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., (i) AO, who was the general secretary of the instant prosperity meeting on November 201, 201, sent an advertisement to the rice Luxembourg market to sublease the instant biochemicalner from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the original instance, and there was a fact that E, who reported the advertisement and found the advertisement, was only at its own place.