The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Although the defendant did not appear as a witness and make a false statement contrary to his memory, the court below found him guilty of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, the lower court sufficiently recognized that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

(1) B was prosecuted for committing murder and attempted murder committed against D and tried by the Suwon District Court, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months on June 3, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first instance trial”. Meanwhile, at the appellate court of the above case, B was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution in two years and six months of imprisonment, and the judgment became final and conclusive August 19, 201). (2) The victim Eul made a statement that “I am ready to me by facing one face of a face of a face of a face with a face of a face of a face with a face of a face of a face, attacking a face of a face of a face with a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of a face of face of a face of a face of a face of a face of face, B was present as a witness of the first instance trial of this case, and she made a statement consistent with the witness, the right eye, the right part part, the left part part and the back part.

On the other hand, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant was present as a witness of the first instance trial of this case and continued to be present at the scene of crime, the Defendant stated that “B was unable to deem D as a shouldered ward,” and stated that “B was in conflict with the contents of the Defendant’s statement as the Defendant.”

③ The first instance court of this case.