All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts: (i) Defendant A was a beer disease on the wall around 06:00 on April 13, 2010; (ii) Defendant A was faced with her head on the wall; and (iii) Defendant A did not have the head on the wall; and (iv) Defendant A did not have the head on the face of her head on the face of her head; (iv) Defendant A’s testimony stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below did not constitute perjury; and (v) Defendant A did not have a criminal intent, since the testimony stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as

B. Defendant B did not look at H’s head due to the two-way illness, and Defendant B believed such Defendant A’s words. As such, the testimony of H as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment and the testimony of Defendant C as stated in paragraph (3) of the same Article do not constitute perjury, and Defendant B did not have the intent to commit a crime of perjury and perjury.

Abstract Defendant C did not look at H’s head as a two-way soldier, and Defendant C only testified as a witness. As such, Defendant C’s testimony stated in Paragraph 3 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below does not constitute perjury, and Defendant C did not have the intent to commit perjury.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted all the facts charged by the prosecutor and sentenced the defendants guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that H was not punished as a principal offender for perjury on the grounds of confession or self-abstinence in relation to the testimony of H as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment, the lower court accepted the facts charged against Defendant A and sentenced Defendant A guilty, despite that H was not acknowledged as a principal offender for perjury, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants were punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, by fine for two million won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.