However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Around October 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) made the false testimony that D had the complainant receive a refund of deposit amount of KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000,000,000 from a non-certified judicial scrivener office located in Cheongju-si; and (b) made the false testimony that D had the complainant receive a refund of deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000,00,000,000 from the Cheongju-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) to the effect that D agreed to grant a reduction of rent of KRW 50,000,000,000 for four months, although D had the complainant receive a refund.

However, the above testimony of C did not make a false testimony while all facts were true.

On November 7, 2012, the Defendant submitted the above complaint directly to the public service center of the Cheongju District public prosecutor's office located 51-gil, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Busan, 70-gil, for the purpose of having C receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, the police statement to the defendant, the written statement of statement, the written confirmation, the real estate lease contract, each statement of transactions in each passbook, each copy of the written judgment, each copy of the written protocol of mediation, and each investigation report (No. 13,

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant asserts that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the contents of the judgment on the defendant's argument are all facts, including the elderly, the degree of danger of criminal punishment against C, the degree of influence on related civil procedure, and all other circumstances revealed in the records.

However, this Court is legitimate.