The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On October 18, 2015, the Defendant testified on the experience of around October 18, 2015, and the lower court recognized that the Defendant testified on the experience of around August 12, 2015 when the right to collateral security was terminated.

2) On October 18, 2015, the Defendant stated in the court that “The termination of the right to collateral security itself was a party member of the right to collateral security in order to bring an action against the Defendant against the Defendant.” As such, the Defendant did not make a false statement on the ground that it stated in the court that “The termination of the right to collateral security itself was a party member of the right to collateral security at the time.”

B. The content of the Defendant’s testimony of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine is around August 12, 2015, and the content different from the Defendant’s testimony is the content of around October 18, 2015, and thus, it does not relate to the same time between the Defendant’s testimony and the Defendant’s testimony. As such, it is not a matter of time.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case