The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the issue of accusation, the Defendant paid KRW 400 million to D as premium, and ② A complaint was filed as stated in the facts charged, even though it was well aware that D had performed the business of the instant hospital in accordance with the settlement practices after the advance disbursement, and even though it was well aware that D had performed the business of the instant hospital, it can be recognized as intention of accusation.

B. On the charge of perjury, the Defendant knowingly known that the amount of KRW 400 million paid to D was a premium, and subsequently made a false statement contrary to memory, such as written in the facts charged, on the premise that it was an investment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below held that there is proof that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is false, or that the defendant filed a complaint against the defendant with knowledge of the fact that the contents of the defendant's testimony are false statements contrary to memory, as stated in the facts charged as to the accusation, and that the defendant's testimony is false statements contrary to memory, such as the facts charged as to the perjury.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, all the charges against the defendant were acquitted.

1) As to the issue of false accusation, notwithstanding the instant trade agreement, the Defendant filed a complaint against D with the Defendant to arbitrarily use the operating assets of the same business without the Defendant’s agreement or the Defendant’s consent, and ultimately, filed a complaint against D. In light of the fact that there was a controversy as to the nature of the investment between the Defendant and D around April 2009, which was the second settlement, and that there was a dispute as to the distribution of profits from around November 201, which was the first settlement, and that there was a dispute as to the distribution of profits from around April 3, 2009.