The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no voluntariness in the suspect interrogation protocol (second time) by the defendant who misleads the facts to the prosecution.

In addition, the land of this case is owned by the married couple, and the defendant's testimony was not a major issue in the criminal trial, so the defendant's testimony does not constitute perjury.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of two million won)

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the lower court had the same purport as the allegations in this part of the grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected all of the above arguments on the grounds that detailed reasons in the said judgment were stated in detail.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and evidence submitted by the defendant in the court of first instance (the entire certificate of registered matters) does not interfere with the above recognition.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the judgment of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

2) The lower court, under the unfavorable circumstances, determined perjury by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the fact that the perjury of this case was a serious obstacle to the proper exercise of the State’s penal authority by discovering substantial truth; and (b) the fact that the perjury of this case did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial in the relevant criminal case; and (c) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for the court below's improper sentencing alleged by the defendant appear to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

3.2.