The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant, as an auditor of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) at the time of testimony, did not make a false statement on the basis of facts and data directly experienced at the construction site, but did not make a false statement. However, the lower court found the Defendant to have made a false statement, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① The testimony pertaining to D’s blasting construction work is that the Defendant, as the auditor of H, knew of the progress of the construction work and the fact that he was issued with the permission documents to use powders in the process, and it is said that D’s stairs work from D’s Q after the testimony of this case, was conducted as a pora, and that he did not use any powder.

② The testimony relating to the use of the aggregate screening machine was confirmed by the Defendant at the construction site between the year 2012 and the year 2013, and thus, the Defendant was convicted of working with the aggregate screening machine and testified based on experience and memory.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, responded to the question as follows: (i) the Defendant stated, “At the time of an interrogation into the prosecution, the witness stated that the Defendant (B) carried out crushing of three stairs at a height of 5 meters high from the witness and D’s blasting, and then extracted and sold aggregate from 25t dump trucks to 5,00 for a 25m dump truck,” and that “I will comply with the question as to whether it is true.”