The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is that D paid KRW 20 million according to the separate agreement with B, and even though D did not have any fact attached to "the details of ordinary expenses" in the course of entering into a business agreement with B, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and made a false statement to fully recognize the fact of perjury, the court below acquitted the defendant. Thus, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. On May 8, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraudulent case against B in Busan District Court 303 Dong Branch Branch of the Busan District Court on 16:00 and testified; and (b) the Defendant testified with the counsel’s testimony that “I would like to give KRW 100 million to the Defendant (B) on the one hand (the operating capital under the business agreement) since I would not allow the Defendant (B) to give the Defendant (D) one hundred million won (the operating capital under the business agreement). First, the Defendant first received KRW 20 million and then would be paid KRW 80 million thereafter.”

(2) The defendant perused the "statement of ordinary expenses" presented by his/her defense counsel, and testified to the effect that he/she attached "I know about it," "I know it," and "I know it, in this case's text of the work agreement, I have a different opinion." As to the counsel's examination that "I know it is consistent with the detailed statement of additional expenses attached thereto." At the time when B and D entered into the work agreement with his/her defense counsel, I testified to the effect that I attached "the detailed statement of ordinary expenses" in the work agreement with B was attached to the separate document of the work agreement.

However, D paid KRW 20 million according to the separate agreement with B.