The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the judgment of this case was made for a period of one year from the date of conclusion.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. Of the facts stated in the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, the part of the facts alleged in the lower judgment, which stated that “a mortgage was created on the above cargo vehicle to secure compensation for traffic accidents and obtained a loan” was testified as they are known to the Defendant.

Therefore, even though this is not a false statement contrary to memory, it does not constitute perjury, the court below found the defendant guilty.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio decision prosecutor requested changes in the indictment as stated in the facts charged of this case in the judgment below, and the court permitted changes in the indictment as stated in the judgment below, and thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, as above, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the legal doctrine, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant made a statement contrary to his/her memory.

Therefore, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is without merit.

① Whether the Defendant is aware of the reason for the loan to M in the court (No. 2016, 212, the Suwon District Court Decision 2012, Jun. 1, 201) stated in the lower judgment.

“A person who was asked by the counsel does not talk about who was involved,” and as the Defendant was involved in the lending procedure, G C was unable to contact because of the occurrence of a traffic accident.