The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was no perjury for the purpose of undermining E’s conspiracy, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 31, 2011, the summary of the facts charged stated that, at the court of law No. 404 of this Court, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraudulent case against E in this Court No. 2011 high-level 333 of this Court, and testified that, in order for E to be punished, “I would like to be present at the court of law and take an oath,” “I will be the subject of the investment agreement with Jeonnam-do, and the other documents will be F.D., and I would like to be known of the above facts, and I would like to be “I would like to have changed the Defendant(E)’s mutual name” in the prosecutor’s newspaper stating that “I would like to be recommended to give testimony that I would have been “I will not have any e-mailed”, and continuously, “I would have been recommended by the counsel to give testimony that I would have been an environmentally friendly and environment-friendly witness at the time of construction site to change the PP reservoir or its color.”

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory with the intent of harming E.

B. The lower court’s judgment is as follows.