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

On June 16, 2017, the Defendant appeared as a witness in the agreement deposit lawsuit between the representative D, Defendant E, and F of the Jeonju District Court No. 2016Na8131, Jeonju District Court No. 7, the Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-si, Jeonju District Court, No. 2016Na8131, the Jeonju District Court, No. 2016.

On July 26, 2008, the Defendant held the H cafeteria 2 in G around the Jeonju-si on July 26, 2008, and “E and F have been a meeting.”

“N.” on the water of “N.”

It is essential that “the details of the return of money have been divided by conversations.”

“At that time, there is no fact that conversation is divided, but the money has to be paid before a clan meeting or before it.”

“The testimony was made.”

However, in fact, the E and F had been until the end of the above clan meeting, and at the time of the meeting, reported that he sent a notice of collection of KRW 60 million in custody of the deceased I to E, and that he recovered KRW 60,000 in custody of the deceased I to the members of the clan and consented to be used for the clan.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against J or D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A criminal investigation report (to be accompanied by data submitted by a complainant);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Submission of the protocol of examination of the witness who is the complainant) and protocol of examination of the witness;

1. Article 151 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 151 of the choice of punishment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the types of perjury] and evidence destruction crimes, where the perjury No. 1 [the person subject to special sentencing] has an impact on a new illness or the result of a trial (the scope of the recommended punishment] from October to 3 years;

2. The portion of the defendant's false statement was at issue in the trial of the perjury case, and the defendant's perjury affected the result of the trial, and the defendant's false statement was at issue.