The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the Defendant was present as a witness of the Suwon District Court 2014 High Order 1885 (hereinafter “relevant case”), and the testimony is contrary to objective facts, even though the Defendant testified as a witness of the Suwon District Court 2014 High Order 1885 (hereinafter “relevant case”), the Defendant only testified as he testified, and did not make a false statement contrary to memory, and thus, perjury is not established.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that a mistake of fact was identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below and sufficiently recognizable the fact of perjury.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just and there is a violation of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) At the Board of Audit and Inspection or an investigative agency, the Defendant was entirely aware of the fact that he modified the items of “A’s letter of introduction and performance of duties” and “related field research performance” with 10 marks (Evidence Nos. 39 of the evidence record), “A self-introduction and performance of duties” and “no research performance in the relevant field” (Evidence No. 40 of the evidence record), and “No. 7-8 of the full marks will be given to the applicants.”