The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant, who received economic support from the misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part of the judgment below) C's punishment, has sufficient motive to make a false statement in favor of C by attending as a witness upon C's request in a claim for indemnity indemnity claim filed between E (the wife of the network D) and C (the network D's punishment). According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though it can be sufficiently recognized as evidence by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence of this case as to the assertion of mistake of facts in detail in light of the records, the court below's determination that the defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the testimony of E's investigation agency and court of original trial and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of this part was a statement contrary to the defendant's memory, and there is no other evidence to recognize this, is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of mistake of facts as argued by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that perjury is a crime that obstructs the proper exercise of judgment authority, which is a judicial action of the country, and the discovery of substantial truth.

However, considering that the Defendant is a primary offender, the Defendant’s perjury appears to have no particular influence on the trial result of the instant claim for indemnity, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, it is deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.