The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to Defendant A, the Defendant’s testimony that C and F used a police officer to commit an assault constitutes perjury. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. According to the statement of Defendant B and C, Defendant B and C may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant B and C instigated perjury.

In this regard, the court below rejected the credibility of the A's statement and sentenced not guilty, and there is an error of mistake of fact.

2. The prosecutor at the discretion of the prosecutor(s) deleted the facts charged against Defendant A at the trial of the party, and e.g., changed the clause to clause D. “A testimony.”

E. The testimony was made to the effect that “a testimony” was changed to “a testimony,” and that there was no assault from “i to F”, and that said F was not a process of arresting a police officer.

However, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case No. 2015 High Court Order 978, the Defendant was assaulted by the above F, such as face, scam, etc., and the above F, in the process of arresting a police officer in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, he / she obsing him/ her to the police officer and resisting him/ her to the arrest, and the Defendant was witnessed.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

The first sentence among the facts charged against Defendant B and C is changed to “A was indicted on April 29, 2015 by Defendant C due to interference with the performance of official duties to the Changwon District Court, and F was also indicted due to interference with the crime of injury, interference with the performance of official duties in the same court on the same day,” and the facts charged against Defendant A.