The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant testified as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, not all false facts, and even if the Defendant testified as it was aware of at the time, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's testimony as stated in the facts charged of this case can be sufficiently acknowledged as false facts. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant's testimony cannot be viewed as having been made due to mistake without knowing that the defendant's testimony was false. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① From June 2008, the construction work of the 3rd underground floor and the 13th floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) has been suspended on the site of 393 lots of 393 lots of 14,00, for the testimony of each of the facts stated in the holding of the court below. After the construction of the 2nd floor, the 3rd floor and the 13th floor above the ground of the instant building has been resumed from the police officer around June 2008, the construction of the 13th floor of the instant building has been discontinued, and the construction of the 2nd floor slabs and columns of the instant building has been conducted in accordance with the modified design plan. The new 2nd floor and the outer wall construction of the instant building, and the new 2nd floor and the electric line construction (the 308th floor of the investigation record) have been conducted by the defendant himself after being investigated by the investigative agency.

② As to the testimony under paragraphs (3) and (4) of the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment below, the survey of “E Union” other than the health care unit and F shall be from January 10, 2008 to the same year.

3. Between December, 198, the building site of this case was occupied by installing steel plates and containers on the outer wall of this case, and F is not a subcontractor for comprehensive development, but rather a subcontractor for comprehensive development.