All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as 4,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) merely asked Defendant A to testify only on the basis of memory, and even though he did not interfere with perjury as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A recognized the instant crime and seems to seriously reflect on Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing.

However, perjury has a function to protect the judicial action of the state, and to prevent the trial and judgment for the discovery of truth from being endangered. In light of the above legal interests and functions of perjury, the defendant's act is not good, and strict punishment is required by receiving money from the defendant B in return for perjury.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider sentencing after sentencing.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts in the lower court, Defendant B asserted the same as the grounds for appeal at the lower court. As to this, the lower court acknowledged Defendant A’s specific and consistent statement consistent, consistent with the facts charged, and the relevant fraud case in which Defendant B assisted the instant perjury, which was recognized by the appellate court (the said fraud case is the case where Defendant B is the owner of the instant vehicle, and is the victim F.