The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) With respect to perjury among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was found guilty on May 25, 2012 between G and E, and there was no physical contact between G and E at the time; and (b) with respect to the charge in the instant case, the Defendant was found guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case, on August 13, 2013, the Defendant was a person with a disability of class 3 with delay with the right bridge cut off; and (c) the Defendant was a person with a disability of class 3 with the right bridge cut off; and (d) on August 13, 2013, the Defendant was a person with a disability of class 3 with the right bridge cut off; and (e) without physical assault against E.g., the Defendant’

Judgment

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the witness E and F had been only G in the management office at the time of May 25, 2012, and the Defendant did not mislead the Defendant.

Even based on G’s statement at the Busan Busan District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 2475 Decided 2475 Case (No. 29 of investigation records), G was found guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that G, E, and F had been found guilty on the premise that G, E, and F had only been located in the management office at the time, following the Supreme Court’s dismissal ruling. Thus, the above part of the judgment became final and conclusive on May 25, 2012, on the ground that Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant was in the management office cannot be accepted, the Defendant’s false statement contrary to his/her memory was found guilty.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, at the first instance court, made a statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged at the lower court’s court, and the Defendant was only entitled to use the security guards M, after having made a statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged.