The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant and prosecution investigators’ telephone call content of the Defendant had been directly present at an investigative agency over several times prior to that time, and as they are stated by the National Police Agency after receiving a telephone from the National Police Agency, there is no reason to conceal whether the Defendant received the phone, and there is only no reason to avoid memory at the time

Therefore, the defendant cannot be said to have testified against his memory.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, the lower court determined that the testimony made by the Defendant to the prosecution investigator on December 12, 2017, in contrast to his/her memory, on the basis of at least dolusence, could be sufficiently recognized.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable except for adding the judgment below. Thus, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the record, the testimony that the defendant testified with the prosecutorial investigator that he/she is unable to memory the telephone call information with the prosecutorial investigator constitutes a statement contrary to his/her memory and can be sufficiently recognized.

1) On December 12, 2017, the Defendant’s statement made by phone calls with the prosecution investigator and the prosecutorial investigator on December 12, 2017 is not identical to the Defendant’s statement made by attending the investigative agency several times in the criminal case against D Gun E, and was a content unfavorable to B in the criminal case against B. A) The Defendant responded to the purport that he/she has no authority to “budget” in a criminal case against E, or to ask questions regarding “budget”, or to ask questions about whether he/she has received a request for “budget” from B.