The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding C made a false testimony as to the process of the preparation of the written agreement between D and C in the case No. 88704 by the Seoul Central District Court 201, the case No. 88704 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to make a false accusation.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) C attempted to operate a restaurant by changing the type of business from a place operated by D from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, such as the instant facts charged from D to the court of the lower court, but E is not able to operate the restaurant without clearly notifying E of the legal relationship on the claim to refund the lease deposit, and (ii) D would make up for the expenses incurred in opening the restaurant regardless of preparing a written agreement succeeding to the lessee status, thereby making up for the expenses incurred in opening the restaurant.

In addition, the Defendant, who was the husband of D and D, found the F Legal Office and concluded the instant agreement that transferred D’s lease deposit return claims against D to C under mutual agreement, and the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances.

Specifically and consistently stated, ② the preparation of the instant agreement;

The F Legal Office Staff H also prepared the instant agreement in the lower court’s court’s court, along with C and D, according to their genuine intent; the Defendant also made a statement consistent with C’s statement to the effect that he was aware of such circumstances; and ③ the Defendant was in a state that D was incapable of judgment due to the clothes of the negorithy, etc. at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, and thus, C did not make a false testimony contrary to it, notwithstanding the fact that it was not normally made.