The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness in the judgment of the Suwon District Court 201DaMa492 injury case (hereinafter “the instant judgment”) held on October 27, 201, because he did not appear out of the conference room; (b) the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged; (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Whether the testimony of a witness in perjury constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory should be determined by fully grasping the entire testimony in the relevant interrogation procedure rather than by the simple Section of the testimony. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the witness appeared as a witness of the instant trial and made a false statement contrary to his memory.

① According to the “Register of Opinions Exchange of Residents’ Representatives,” which arranged the contents of opinions exchanged by the representatives of apartment units who attended the council of occupants’ representatives present at the council of occupants’ representatives, the Defendant was present at the council of occupants’ representatives of the above apartment units 1201, and the Defendant was present at the council of occupants’ representatives of the above apartment units 3 (exchange of opinions on the selection of fire insurance and cleaning service providers) and was present at the meeting room during the process of handling the agenda items (other discussions) No. 4.

② The above “Register of Opinions Exchange of Residents’ Representatives” was prepared by F, the above apartment 1228 representative, and F, the above list of apartment representatives present at the meeting and the apartment dong representative who did not exist in the meeting room by each item. The above list of the apartment dong representatives present at the meeting and the above statement of Opinion Exchange was also recorded in the meeting room by other than the defendant.