The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below that the defendant testified in F as his memory in the court of the case involving interference with F’s business with computers, etc. which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case / 【Special Case’s / From September 2007 to February 201, 201, the Defendant worked as an employee at “Emart” located in “Emart,” a director of C Co., Ltd., and carried out the overall duties of the said Emart, such as office management, etc. In addition, F, the actual operator of the said Emart, had a dispute over whether the POS system terminal installed by G, around January 13, 2010, arbitrarily changed the POS system set up by G, and whether the said dispute was terminated by F and H POS system operation contract around August 2009.

【Criminal Facts of Crimes】 Around March 20, 2012, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Incheon District Court No. 411 located in Nam-dong, Incheon District Court No. 278-2, Nam-gu, Incheon, in order to offer testimony following the Defendant’s testimony.

The defendant answers to the prosecutor's question, "I would like to answer whether the defendant and I directly talk about the purport that the defendant will engage in a re-contract," and answer to the prosecutor's question, "I would like to answer the above talk at the office in the middle of August 2009," and "I would like to memory the assistant device to recover around January 2010" in the attorney's question, "I would like to say that I would leave the assistant device for six months in G," and "I would have a grace period."