The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant - the Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts did not instigate F a perjury, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor - The sentence (7 million won in penalty) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add “The defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of delivery of a third party bribe at the Daegu District Court on February 16, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 24th day of the same month” to all the charges of the defendant, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more as it was changed by the permission of the court.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following paragraphs.

B. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged that this part of the facts were identical to the assertion of mistake, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons as indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the fact that the defendant instigated the F to make a false statement contrary to memory even though the defendant ordered F to remit 1.5 million won from F to G under the pretext of street transfer can be sufficiently recognized.

On the other hand, the defendant was under the strict control of the staff of the detention house in the process of waiting for the escort to get a court trial together with F, and the defendant did not have to ask for false testimony as stated in the facts charged.

One of the arguments is the defendant himself.