The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts constituting the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of part of perjury committed by attending as a witness the case of violation of the Minimum Wage Act No. 484, Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2013, Suwon-nam Branch 484, and making a false statement (hereinafter “the case of violation of the Minimum Wage Act”), and found the Defendant guilty of the charge of perjury, “The agreement itself is false.”

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict of perjury on the ground that the testimony was “.”

In that sense, the prosecutor only filed an appeal against the acquittal portion among the judgment below, and the perjury portion which the court below found guilty is exempted from the scope of attack and defense between the parties, and is not subject to examination and judgment by this court.

Therefore, this Court has the effect that the Defendant “Written Agreement itself is false.”

Determination is limited to the perjury portion stated “....”

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) whether the defendant's testimony is false or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the examination procedure in question as a whole, not by the simple Section of the testimony. In full view of the defendant's testimony in the case of violating the Minimum Wage Act and the contents of the defendant's assertion in the related case, the defendant's statement of agreement itself "

The portion of the testimony “ is also a false statement contrary to the defendant’s memory.”

3. The court below's decision that found the defendant not guilty on the grounds cited by the court below as the grounds for the judgment of not guilty is justified and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, in light of the following circumstances which can be acknowledged by evidence.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.