The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the statements of E and K correspond to the facts charged, such as the statement of the lower court witness E and K on the place coincide with each other, and the statements of E and K are highly reliable, and the Defendant, who is an employee of the lessee company financing funds, operated D and L hospital.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the fact that the contract for the lease of MRI equipment concluded between J appears to have been aware of that it was a public lease contract, Seoul Central District Court 2013 was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant made a false testimony that the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the LI equipment was not installed in the LI equipment at the hearing of the case No. 44800, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the MI equipment was not installed in the LI equipment,

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had the intention of perjury, has an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On February 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the Seoul Central District Court located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul; and (b) at the same court between Plaintiff D Co., Ltd., Defendant E and F, 2013, Gohap 44800, the Defendant appeared as a witness on the date of pleadings in the lease fee claim lawsuit; and (c) was selected as the Plaintiff.