All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the committee organized the original stenographic records centering on the contents related to the agenda after the completion of the meeting in accordance with the regulations and practices, and stored the original stenographic records as they were by neglecting the stenographic records since 2008, which was so demanded by the National Assembly members to submit the minutes, and submitted them to the National Assembly and destroyed the original stenographic records.

On October 9, 2016, the Defendant did not participate in the process of the inspection, and the Defendant received a phone call from the examiner on October 9, 2016, stating the reasons why the stenographic records submitted to the National Assembly is less than the stenographic records separately obtained by the National Assembly members, and received an additional “presumptive response data” and confirmed that the stenographic records were arranged in accordance with the above regulations and practices.

In the inspection of state administration, the defendant only testified as identified by himself, did not make a false statement contrary to memory, and did not have the intention of perjury.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of perjury and misapprehending the aforementioned legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of each of the testimony set forth in [Attachment] Nos. 1, 3, and 5 of the charges of this case.

2) Inasmuch as the Defendant, on October 13, 2016, prior to the end of the inspection of the state administration, submitted a warning to the National Assembly to make a confession, the punishment should be mitigated or exempted pursuant to the proviso to Article 14(1) and (2) of the former Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. (amended by Act No. 15621, Apr. 17, 2018; hereinafter “Act on Testimony at the National Assembly”).

The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutor 1) The overall context of questioning and answering questions.