The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of this case’s perjury (this Court Decision 2012No. 2514, hereinafter “the present case”), the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though he testified as it is in the present case, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if perjury against a defendant on an unreasonable sentencing basis is established, the lower court’s sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts, such as the defendant's assertion of mistake, since the defendant took an oath as a witness in the case on the merits as stated in the facts charged of this case, and made

1) The defendant's confession at the investigative agency or at the court of first instance differs from the testimony at the court of appeal after the confessions at the court of first instance or the court of appeal cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confessions. In determining the credibility of confessions, the defendant's credibility of confessions should be determined in consideration of the following: (a) whether the content of the confessions' statement itself has objective rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confessions' statement itself; (c) what is the motive or reason; and (d) what is the circumstance leading up to the confessions' confessions, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confessions among other evidence than the confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008). 2) The defendant does not have any witness at the time of interrogation of the prosecution's office; and (d) whether the confessions's statement at the terminal toilets of passenger ships in the court of appeal

C. As a matter of course, C was located in the toilet at the time, C.