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

On November 20, 2013, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraud case against Suwon District Court No. 404, Suwon District Court No. 2013, Jinwon District Court No. 2120, Jinsan District Court No. 201, Nov. 20, 2013.

On October 2008, the Defendant: (a) at the request of the Fususer located in the common sense of Ansan-si; (b) on the part of the Defendant, with respect to the fact that the Defendant represented a promissory note on the husband H of G and D at the request of D, the Defendant met G when doing so.

Mascopy need not be entered.

In order to be asked ", there is any question later."

“The answer was made.”

However, as the Defendant had met G in order to receive a promissory note, the time when the Defendant met G was transferred to the receipt of a notarized promissory note.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement and presented perjury as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, protocol of examination of witness (net 2), record (net 3,15,22), promissory note (net 6), bill process (net 7), bill receipt (net 7), loan certificate (net 13), loan certificate (net 2013 order and 2120 order of Suwon District Court (net 16,25), Suwon District Court Decision 2014No1388 (net 26)

1. Relevant Article 152 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant stated to the same effect as the instant perjury even in the course of the fraudulent investigation into D; and (b) it appears that this statement had an impact on D’s prosecution; (c) the case of the instant crime is not light; (d) however, the Defendant’s misunderstanding at the latest, did not affect the outcome of the trial; (c) the Defendant’s perjury did not affect the outcome of the trial; (d) the Defendant’s perjury did not have any same criminal record; and (e)