The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. All of the parts found guilty in the lower court are related to whether Defendant ordered the construction of a new living facility and multi-family house located in the Y No. 2 located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) in relation to the construction of a new living facility and multi-family house located in the Sung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”), which is the interest of the parties to the relevant civil lawsuit.

However, the owner of the instant construction project is the owner or G of the Defendant, and the Defendant merely replaced part of the work as the owner on behalf of G and did not demand or instruct any additional construction or design modification to E.

The defendant is not aware of the contents of the written expert opinion prepared in the related civil procedure, and the defendant's delivery of the written expert opinion to E was merely the purport to refer to E or other people's request.

In other words, the Defendant only testified in the relevant civil procedure on the premise of such fact and memory and did not have made a false testimony contrary to memory, and some testimony is merely the fact that the Plaintiff’s agent mistakenly identified the intent of questioning the Plaintiff’s agent in the process of witness examination as “whether the Defendant directly instructed the additional construction.” In addition, even though the final judgment of the relevant civil procedure did not accept E’s assertion, the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged based on the E’s unilateral statement. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion

B. A prosecutor 1) The Defendant testified that there is no fact even though the Defendant ordered the replacement of the site president N in light of the fact that the “1 testimony” part of the facts charged in the instant case, among the facts charged, was replaced with the statement of N and E at the site and without any special reason.