All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The testimony of Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the “instant testimony”) written in the facts charged of mistake of facts is all true, and Defendant A did not have made a false testimony contrary to memory, and Defendant B believed that the testimony of this case was true and instigated Defendant A to make a false testimony, despite the fact that Defendant B had not instigated Defendant A to make a false testimony, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of each of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court and the appellate court based on the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination as to the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court is considerably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s determination solely on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court differs from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).