The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any misunderstanding of facts with C. D with C.

The Defendant testified in the Daejeon District Court Daejeon District Court 2017 Gohap 57 case (hereinafter referred to as the “pre-exercise case”) in accordance with the Defendant’s memory.

However, the court below held that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory.

The decision was determined.

B. In the preceding case, the Defendant was indicted as a co-defendant in the preceding case, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months for a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defluence, etc.) and a crime of fraud.

In this regard, it is a double punishment that the court below judged that the statement made by the defendant constitutes perjury in the preceding case and punished again.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to impose the punishment (3 million won).

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court stated in detail the grounds for rejecting the Defendant’s assertion in the lower part of “a summary of evidence” of the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in detail by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (a double punishment), the crime committed by the defendant who was prosecuted with C in the preceding case and was found guilty is a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) and a crime of fraud, and is different from the crime of

It can not be double punishment by punishing the criminal facts of this case.

The defendant's double punishment argument is not accepted.

(c)

In comparison with the judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.