All of the appeals by the prosecutor and the defendants against the defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A’s perjury and the crime of perjury, Defendant A’s perjury, and Defendant B’s perjury, Defendant A is present at the court and give testimony after taking an oath (hereinafter “instant fact confirmation”).

(2) As to Defendant B’s attempted fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charges of attempted fraud, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charges of attempted fraud, since Defendant B did not have any mistake of fact or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the above charges, as to Defendant B’s attempted fraud, it was merely a simple answer based on the content of the instant confirmation document, and thus, it is difficult to view it as perjury. As such, Defendant A’s perjury, a principal offender, was not established. (2) As to Defendant B’s attempted fraud, the lower court did not have any business with E or E, which is the husband of E or E (hereinafter “E, etc.”) at the request of E and G (hereinafter “C”) in relation to joint security, and only prepared a loan certificate of KRW 700 million (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”), and did not have any substantial obligation to E, etc., and even if the obligation based on the instant loan certificate was recognized, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charges of attempted fraud.

B. Defendant B of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant B did not have the intent and ability to repay the amount of KRW 120 million at the time of borrowing the victim’s character capital from the victim’s character capital Korea Co., Ltd. in terms of the purchase cost. However, the lower court recognized the part of the facts charged against Defendant B among the facts charged against Defendant B.