The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. The judgment of the court below No. 1 regarding the increase in the subcontract amount among the facts charged with perjury against Defendant A was pronounced not guilty, and the remainder of perjury and the conviction was pronounced as to the fraud. Since only the Defendant appealed against the conviction, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the acquittal is separate and confirmed as it is, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the conviction part among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the perjury of the judgment of the court below 1 which found Defendant A1 guilty, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant did not have made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance in the judgment of the court of first instance, although 2013 Jinwon Branch of the Changwon District Court was present as a witness of the claim for construction cost No. 549, and the defendant did not have made

2) The sentence sentenced by the first and second instances of sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment for 8 months, the suspended sentence for 2 years, the fine of 3 million won, the second instance court: imprisonment without prison labor for 8 months, the suspended sentence for 2 years, the suspended sentence for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by Defendant G 2 to the Defendant (the imprisonment without prison labor for 8 months and the suspension of execution for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court tried to hold Defendant A together with the appeal cases against the judgment of the court of first and second instance. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court of first instance and the offense in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the relevant part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be reversed.

Nevertheless, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of perjury in the judgment of the court of first instance is still valid.