All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 5, 2008, the Defendant (in fact-finding) testified with F on a large scale of H on the following occasions: (a) observed that E was able to have a dular; and (b) thereafter, F was hospitalized in a hospital to the extent of one week; (c) there was no choice but to think that F was receiving treatment by assault from H and E.

Therefore, since the defendant testified like the contents of the facts charged in this case, it is not a false testimony contrary to memory.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. In light of the poor quality of the Defendant’s crime, etc., the sentence (a fine of three million won) imposed by the lower judgment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is established when a witness makes a false statement, and the false statement at this time refers to the statement that goes against his/her memory, not the objective fact falsity.

Therefore, if a witness gives an answer to the purport that he/she is aware of the fact that the witness does not know well, or that he/she does not grasp the detailed contents of the examination or that he/she does not associate with it, he/she is found to constitute perjury because he/she makes a false statement contrary to his/her memory.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 86Do57 delivered on September 9, 1986, 81Do118 delivered on June 23, 1981, etc.). (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

F, the Defendant, and J between F, H, and E, are disputed on May 5, 2008 as a matter of inspection of the original of the D Hospital Lease Agreement, and H, to the police officers M, N.