When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant, from June 5, 2013 to the Government of Gyeonggi-si, was serving as a cook in C, which is a sanatorium for older persons in B, from around June 5, 2013; on June 25, 2015, was temporarily changing the work as a sanatorium for care and protection; and the same year.

8. The same year when he/she had worked as a cook again from around 24.

9. 21. The person who retired from the police station.

On July 28, 2017, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition to recover travel expenses for D long-term recuperation pay in the law court No. 19 of the Jung-gu District Court No. 19 of the Gyeonggi-do District Court, which held that he was a member of the lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition to recover travel expenses for D long-term recuperation pay. On October 16, 2016, the Defendant read the recording of the recording in which the Defendant and F, etc.

the plaintiff's agent's inquiry that "at that time recording is made" and that the plaintiff's agent's argument is discussed at the speed coffee shop.

In other words, I am satise at the time of their dynasium.

“The statement was made”.

However, the above facts did not seem to have the words that the Defendant recorded with F, etc. when the Defendant divided the conversation with F, etc., and there was no scambly scambly, and there was no scambly scam.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Protocol of examination of witness (D);

1. The recording (E, A, and F) argues that the Defendant stated that the recording is made by F on October 16, 2016, and that F, written by the Defendant, had the documents, such as a fact-finding document that is disadvantageous to F, and that he/she was found to have a pipe of the voltage because he/she started dialogue with F, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, i.e., ① the F had consistently recorded in the investigative agency and this court without a statement that the Defendant recorded.

F. (F.) At the time of the on-site investigation of the National Health Insurance Corporation into the instant medical center, the Defendant did not perform his/her duties.

The reasons for the statement are old.