The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as shown in the annexed sheet;

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) is that each testimony set forth in paragraphs 2 through 5 of the facts charged, which the defendant appeared as a witness at the first instance court and the appellate court of the criminal case (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”) such as violation of the official election law by J of the State Police Agency I (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrator”) and interference with the exercise of official authority, etc. is inconsistent with the objective facts as seen below and is a false statement contrary to the defendant’s memory. The above testimony by the defendant constitutes perjury.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted all the facts charged on the ground that each of the above testimony cannot be concluded as a false statement contrary to the defendant's memory or that it does not constitute a false public surgery as referred to in perjury as a part of legal evaluation or mere opinion on the facts that the above testimony cannot be concluded as a false statement contrary to the defendant's memory. The court below erred in the misapprehension

The court below held that the testimony (Article 2 of the facts charged) related to the circumstances in which an application for a search and seizure warrant was not filed on December 12, 2012, the court below held that the defendant will not apply for a search and seizure warrant by telephone to the defendant around December 14:59 of J, 2012.

The Defendant’s testimony portion (hereinafter “J’s testimony related to telephone”) cannot be ruled out that the Defendant’s testimony cannot be readily concluded as a false statement contrary to memory, on the ground that, even if there is a difference between objective facts and the truth of the J, it cannot be ruled that the Defendant’s testimony was a false statement contrary to his memory.

However, in light of the evidence such as credibility statement of the JJ, the J's statement is merely a mere intent to attract the defendant, not a statement that does not apply for a search and seizure warrant.