The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, on March 2013, 201, although the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine and mistake of facts, prepared a report on the inventory goods, and later submitted it to the court in the civil litigation with the victim, and did not intend to acquire pecuniary gains by deceiving the court, and did not intend to mislead the damaged person, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) In light of the following circumstances, which are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, attempted to deceive the court to obtain pecuniary benefits from the damaged person,

The decision was determined.

① On January 3, 2013, C entered into a contract to transfer D (including building deposits, customers, inventories, computers, telephones, and all kinds of office equipment, etc.) to the Defendant at KRW 75 million (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer contract”).

C Prior to this, the Defendant issued a inventory status document (Evidence 39 pages, hereinafter the inventory status of this case) to the Defendant, and confirmed the inventory status together with the Defendant.

The testimony was made in the court below.

The testimony is consistent with ordinary transaction practices, and it is supported by the employee E's testimony of the court below and the defendant's inventory status report of this case after investigating inventory according to C's instructions at around that time. Thus, the above testimony can be believed.

② After acquiring D from C, the Defendant did not have any problem with respect to the inventory quantity for a long time.

On January 27, 2014, the defendant lent his spouse's name and filed a civil suit against C (Seoul District Court 2014Gadan 4731, hereinafter referred to as the "civil suit of this case").