The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The testimony of the defendant in the original judgment of the court below is not a false testimony against memory.

In particular, the Defendant recognized all relevant companies including D (hereinafter “D”) as one company, and deeming the Defendant to have become aware of the amount of money or the source of money naturally based solely on the amount of money or the position of the Defendant, as it is important not to whether money was created from the account of a certain company, but to have been created. Therefore, deeming the Defendant to have become aware of the source of money naturally based on only the amount of money or the position of the Defendant is in charge of.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) If the testimony made by the appellate court after taking an oath of a mistake of facts, and the testimony made by the person himself/herself is well aware of the fact of his/her testimony while he/she is well aware of the fact of his/her testimony, the testimony is a statement contrary to his/her memory and constitutes perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do57, Sept. 9, 1986). (b) If the appellate court, in the course of a trial, intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after an ex post facto determination, even though there is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of perjury, it should be reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is clearly unreasonable due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without such exceptional circumstances, the defendant reverse without permission to make a decision on the fact-finding of the first instance court without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017).