All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 was present as a witness of the Seoul High Court Decision 201Na35540, and the Defendant asserted that he was guilty of the fact was present at the meeting of the representative of the occupants of the E apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) and the Plaintiff’s testimony related to the lease agreement for the installation of a telephonephone and automatic door (hereinafter “the instant construction”) of each apartment (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) concluded between the council of occupants of the instant apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) and the Kti Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of each of the testimony made in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the fact that the defendant testified is false is erroneous is erroneous.

2) Even if the court below found the defendant guilty, the sentence of a fine of KRW 4 million imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s lower court, on August 4, 2008, found that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was demanded to suspend the implementation of the lease loan from the perspective of the representative meeting of the occupants of the instant apartment on or around August 4, 2008.

In addition, the court rendered a verdict of innocence (not guilty on the grounds) as to the facts charged with perjury, but at the time of the establishment of the Commission, the representative of the apartment occupants of this case.

D consistently from the investigation stage to the original trial, D made a decision to temporarily suspend the construction of the instant case at the resident representative conference on August 2, 2008, and sent to the Defendant through the Director of the Management Office on August 4, 2008, to suspend the execution of the instant loan under the instant lease contract, and subsequently, made a call directly related to the Defendant, and was practically involved in the conclusion of the instant lease contract.