The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, E, and I consistently stated that “E does not have the right to return the deposit to the Defendant on June 22, 2013,” at the investigative agency and the court of original instance. Each of the EI’s statements is consistent with its common sense, and there were no circumstances to doubt credibility, and it was difficult for E’s family members to prepare a house where five persons could reside at the time of deducting the loan obligation from the lease deposit and actually receive the refund from the Defendant. In fact, C, the Defendant’s husband, on the grounds as above, could threaten E’s family members to deduct the deposit from the deposit if they were drunk, and it was difficult for the Defendant to return the deposit to the 20th day prior to the conclusion of the judgment on the crime of perjury (hereinafter “the judgment of 20th day before the judgment of 20th day”), and there was no possibility of returning the deposit to the Defendant’s director’s 3th day prior to the conclusion of the judgment.”