All of the Prosecutor and the Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to find facts-findings 1) - The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the Defendants could be jointly aware of the fact that they acquired the ownership shares of the forest of this case from the victim Ymun Jung Jung-gu Council by deceiving the court. 2) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Defendant A- The point of perjury is that there is little money transaction between Defendant A and Defendant B, which was put up by the network J and the Defendant B. After that, Defendant B made a false statement contrary to memory that Defendant B was “the ownership of the forest of this case from the network J around 1984, in lieu of the loan to the network J.” Thus, Defendant B believed that the instant contract was concluded on or around 1984 between Defendant B and the network J, and thus, Defendant B made a false statement contrary to memory.

C. Defendant B- Inasmuch as the instant sales contract was concluded orally between Defendant B and the deceased J as seen above, Defendant A did not give a perjury, and even if Defendant A gave a perjury, Defendant B merely provided a true testimony to Defendant A at the time, and did not interfere with the perjury so that he could make a false statement against memory.

2. Determination

A. On each one of the frauds in the judgment of mistake of facts, each one of the frauds in the judgment of mistake of facts is a crime that acquires the other party’s property or property benefits by deceiving the court and obtaining a favorable judgment. If the conviction is easily found, anyone may make a favorable assertion to himself/herself and receive a remedy for infringement of rights through the lawsuit.