The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No. 96) held that the Defendant made a false statement as stated in the facts charged, either as a witness in the court, at the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012No. 2012No. 96) in the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) and the case

The judgment of the first instance court, which convicted, reversed the judgment, and sentenced the defendant not guilty of the violation of the law of defense E, and the above judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is inconsistent with the judgment of the related case, and there is an error of law by mistake.

2. We examine the judgment of the court below closely with the evidence, and examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts, as alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is rejected.

① In the case of perjury as indicated in the facts charged No. 1, even in light of the content of the statement itself as properly decided by the court below, it cannot be readily concluded that the testimony is false contrary to memory.

② In the case of perjury as stated in the facts charged B, the appellate court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the violation of the defense justice against E by the appellate court of the relevant case as the lack of proof of the crime, and there was no criminal history at the time of the end of the E and A because “H would be severely punished.”

The fact that E made a false statement that E received KRW 3 million on the pretext of this request is recognized as the fact that E made a confession at the investigative agency and the court of first instance, and A and H made a statement corresponding thereto.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the testimony of the accused alone is a false statement against memory.