All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 ⑴ 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 ㈎ 피고인은 2012. 11. 15. C, E을 만난 사실 자체가 없다.

In addition, the Defendant consistently stated that, at the time of trial with C in Seoul Central District Court 2014 High Order 1565 case (hereinafter “the premise case”), the Defendant is C, and the Defendant is the first person who stated that “A must promptly walk before the cancellation of lending KRW 100 billion to a foreign company,” and the Defendant merely delivered the horses first as above. The testimony stated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “the testimony of this case”) is the same purport.

Therefore, although the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, the first instance court did not err by misunderstanding the fact due to the violation of the rule of law without hearing and hearing.

㈏ 또한, 피고인은 전제사건에서 공동 피고인인 C과 심리가 분리되어 증인으로서 출석한 후 자신의 변소 취지와 같이 진술한 것인바, 전제사건이 유죄로 인정되었다고

In the judgment of the first instance court that once he/she was punished for perjury, the court erred by misapprehending the legal principles such as the principle of prohibition of double punishment and the principle of non-fluence in Japan.

Shebbly Sentencing 1. The punishment of the first deliberation (the punishment amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the first deliberation of the Prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s first deliberation sentence is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination:

가. 피고인의 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 심리 미진 및 채 증 법칙 위배로 인한 사실 오인 주장에 관한 판단 ㈎ 동일한 사실관계에 관하여 이미 확정된 형사판결이 인정한 사실은 유력한 증거 자료가 되므로, 그 형사재판의 사실 판단을 채용하기 어렵다고

인정되는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이에 배치되는 사실은 인정할 수 없는 것이다( 대법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009도 11349 판결 등 참조). ㈏ 위...