All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts merely stated that Defendant B gave testimony only as the main part of the judgment, and there is no fact that Defendant B instigated the perjury, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant A’s judgment on Defendant A’s assertion did not have any particular criminal history except for those punished twice by a fine, that the above Defendant led to the conviction of the instant case, and that the testimony of the said Defendant appears not to affect the outcome of the trial in the relevant case, the legislative intent of perjury to secure the propriety and fairness of the trial procedure, balance between other similar cases and the sentencing, as well as other sentencing conditions, such as the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment against the said Defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the said Defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant B shall be deemed as aiding and abetting Defendant A with perjury as shown in the facts charged in this case. Therefore, this part of the allegation by Defendant B is without merit.

(1) The defendant A made a statement that the defendant B would have taken a bribe to the police officer who sought a bribe one week prior to his testimony in the prosecutor's investigation, and that the defendant B would have taken a bribe to the police officer.