The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant has instigated G and F with perjury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal.

The judgment of the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion by admitting the guilty guilty of the facts charged in this case after compiling each of the evidences in its judgment.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is deemed justifiable, and there was no error of misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

A. On October 12, 2014, G and F appeared to have been prosecuted for the Defendant’s injury to E’s reputation in Da located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan at the time of Goyang-si, and appeared as a witness of the instant case (Seoul District Court High Court 2015, 809, J and F). Even if the Defendant was not in the above place at the above time on the day and around the day, the Defendant testified that he had been in the above place on the day, and testified contrary to memory with the content that the Defendant did not defame E at the time.

After that, G and F were punished by a fine for perjury with respect to such testimony.

B. At the investigation stage of the instant case by the prosecution, the Defendant appears to have not made a false statement favorable to the Defendant in the process of the instant defamation case, “K and I have become aware of the end of K’s sexuality and I’s sexuality.”

Two minutes (G and F), instead of this (W and F), I proposed that giving testimony will take into account the two different attitudes, and that it will not constitute a crime of thickness.

“(83 pages of the investigation record)”, “N, G, and F”, as written, have changed testimony.

“(Investigation Records No. 84)”.