2.B

Attorney D

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants is suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

【Basic Fact-Finding】

On June 6, 1997, 197, Macheon-si and MaF with a burden of all the expenses, creating a public cemetery, grant a right to use one-half of the prepared cemetery area to F, and settle the project expenses. On the same day, the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the 16,364 square meters of Hancheon-si, Yancheon-si, Chuncheon-si, for the creation of a new cemetery (hereinafter referred to as the "basic convention"), and the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the 16,364 square meters of Hancheon-si, Chuncheon-si, Chuncheon-si, for the creation of a new cemetery (hereinafter referred to as "the instant basic convention"), 249,194 square meters of I forest, J J 25,289, K 2,876 meters of forestry and fields, L 118,442 meters of forests and fields, M 27,69 meters of land (hereinafter referred to as "land donation in total").

Afterward, "N Promotion Committee, including Defendant B, entered into a new agreement on December 19, 200 with respect to the instant basic agreement, and established a company on September 17, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the implementation agreement of this case") on December 19, 200. The 0 Co., Ltd. entered into a new agreement on December 22, 2001 on the implementation of the instant basic agreement on the “G Burial Creation Project” and the "Additional Convention (hereinafter referred to as the "Additional Convention") with respect to the amendment to and addition to the instant implementation agreement, of the Convention on December 22, 2001 and the area of 140,670 square meters, which was set up as the common cemetery area among the land donated in this case, according to the above Convention.

On September 5, 2003, Chuncheon City concluded a contract with a stock company to entrust the management of the park cemetery (hereinafter referred to as the "instant entrusted management contract") with the management of the park cemetery (hereinafter referred to as "the instant entrusted management contract"), and made 0 stock companies manage the instant park cemetery.

Even after the expiration of the period on December 5, 2006, Chuncheon City: (a) continuously occupied the 1 cafeteria cafeteria, store located within the instant park cemetery (hereinafter “instant restaurant building”); (b) notified a stock company of the payment of KRW 394,50 of the rent for public property in 2008; (c) value-added 39,450 of the rent for value-added tax; and (d) KRW 29,460 of the rent for public property in 2009; and (c) notified the company of the payment of all the above rent for KRW 285,370 of the rent for public property in 207; (d) KRW 7,861,320; and (e) KRW 2,983,430; and (e) KRW 201,70 of the rent for public property in 208; and (e) notified the company of the payment of the rent for public property in 201,717; and (e) KRW 20167.7.7.7.7

【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendant A

The defendant works from February 2002 to January 2004 for Chuncheon viewing P, and is a person in charge of the duties of allocating the cemetery area related to the G Burial Project.

On October 16, 2014, at around 16:50, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Chuncheon District Court No. 202, No. 202, which was located in 284, as the official announcement in Chuncheon-si, and took an oath. The Defendant was examined in the examination of the foregoing case.

- The right to use the cemetery area under Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Implementation Convention of this case is not only the right to use the grave but also the right to use the accessory facilities, including the right to use the library office, restaurant, store, warehouse and office, and there was no difference between the plaintiff and the defendant;

- In light of the total created area table attached to the notice of the settlement of the cost of the G Burial Development Project, the Plaintiff’s agent’s “the management office, symbol tower, stone treatment plant, restaurant, restaurant, room, toilet, sewage treatment plant, these parts are indicated as the area of the Chuncheon City. However, the Plaintiff’s agent’s question, stating that the facilities, such as the management office, toilet, etc., are all used in the city of Chuncheon City, need not make the above table because of the fact that the facilities, such as the management office, toilet, etc., are all used in the entire area of the city of Chuncheon.”

- continue to answer the Plaintiff’s agent’s “if the witness so, the reasons why the witness made this ticket will be 50:50 for the purpose of making an internal report, and it should be noted that such a ticket was prepared, and that it does not have any special meaning as to what extent it was given to the Plaintiff, since it was compared with the number based on the number of graves assigned to the Plaintiff.”

- The plaintiff's agent answers to the question of "Ischeon-si's intention to allow the management office, warehouse, office, etc. to continue to use the building of this case, such as management office, restaurant, store, warehouse, office, etc. while it is being used and managed for the grave portion," and answers to the question of "Ischeon-si's intention to use the office, warehouse, office, etc. for the grave portion" of the defendant's agent's "Ischeon-si's superior to the witness, if Ischeon-si's intention to do so, will be approved."

Pursuant to the implementation agreement of this case, exclusive license for the restaurant building of this case is 0 corporation;

0 The Defendant testified to the effect that, while a stock company uses and manages a grave, he would allow the continued use of facilities, such as the management office, warehouse, and office, as a matter of course, Q’s superior approval was obtained, and that there was no agreement on the exclusive license for the instant restaurant building to vest in Chuncheon.

However, in 200, 00 companies suggested that 0 companies should re-consult about the distribution of the burial ground in Chuncheon first, and agreed to vest the exclusive license for the facilities, such as the instant restaurant building, instead of additionally allocating the number of graves. However, the company was only entrusted with the management of the instant restaurant building pursuant to the instant entrusted management contract from Chuncheon City, and the Defendant was in direct charge of the distribution of the graveyard area. As the Defendant was well aware that the exclusive license of the facilities, such as the instant restaurant building, was in Chuncheon P, and 10 corporations naturally continued to use the facilities, such as the management office, warehouse, office, etc. while using and managing the grave, there was no approval from Q Q, who was the superior.

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

2. Defendant B

The defendant is a representative director of a corporation from December 26, 2001 to September 17, 2004, who directly takes charge of consultation on the distribution of the above cemetery as a member of the N Promotion Committee from around 1998.

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant appeared to have taken an oath in the court of Chuncheon District Court No. 202, No. 202 on March 20, 2015, as a witness of the claim for revocation of the excessive disposal of the above

Defendant’s witness examination of the above case;

- The Plaintiff’s agent answers to the question “The right to use the cemetery area under Article 24(1) of the present Convention is not only the right to use the grave but also the right to use ancillary facilities such as management office, restaurant, store, warehouse, and office, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant do not have any objection or dispute among them;

- The Plaintiff’s agent includes both the grave portion and the management office, warehouse, restaurant, shop, etc. of Plaintiff 0 in the list of property subject to the Do entrusted management, which the Plaintiff’s agent consulted with the witness at the time of entering into the consignment contract, but it is confirmed that the graveyard of this case was included because it was a public cemetery, and that the grave portion, management office, warehouse, restaurant, shop, etc. was part of the part for which the Plaintiff continued to use the grave portion, warehouse, restaurant, store, etc. pursuant to the implementation agreement of this case, and that this point does not require any objection or dispute.”

- It is essential for the Plaintiff’s agent to use and manage the grave section, management office, warehouse, restaurant, shop, etc. free of charge, as provided in the instant Convention, even if the three-year entrustment contract is not concluded on the part of the Plaintiff’s agent’s “I have the honor to ask questions as follows: “To this end, it was impossible to raise any objection among them, and it was recognized as it was.”

- The Plaintiff’s agent’s letter of notification of the settlement of the G Burial Development Project Costs is a public letter stating that it additionally distributes and adjusts the number of graves corresponding to the increased construction cost to the extent that it is equivalent to the increased construction cost, and that the Plaintiff waives his establishment at a military unit, such as a restaurant and store, and that it would give the Plaintiff a consideration to it (the Defendant). The Plaintiff’s agent’s letter of notification of the settlement of the G Burial Development Project Costs cannot contain any such content, and it appears in the statement stating that it would indicate the number of graveyard bills to settle the non-use of the YIs.

- With respect to the additional distribution of seedlings by the Plaintiff’s agent, the Plaintiff’s answer to the question that “I would like to give up the management office premises, warehouses, restaurants, stores, etc. and not at any time request for the consideration,” which read, “I would have no concern about any connection with it.”

0 As the corporation was granted exclusive license to the instant restaurant building pursuant to the instant implementation agreement, it testified to the effect that regardless of the conclusion of the instant entrusted management agreement, all of the instant restaurant building can be used for free, and that there was no combination of exclusive license to the instant restaurant building to vest in Chuncheon.

However, in 200, 00 companies suggested that the distribution of the cemetery should be re-consulted at the time of Chuncheon, and that the company would vest in the exclusive license for the facilities, such as the instant restaurant building instead of additionally distributing the number of grave flags. However, the company held the shares held that the company was entrusted with the management of the instant restaurant building pursuant to the instant entrusted management agreement from Chuncheon City, and that the company continued to use the facilities, such as the government office, warehouse, and office, as a matter of course during the use and management of the grave, and that the Defendant was in direct charge of consultation on the distribution of the cemetery, along with R as a member of the N Promotion Committee and the representative director of the company as the auditor of the said company.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness S and Q;

1. Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Gudan954, Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Kadan983

1. Statement A in the eight-time pleadings of the Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap954 case; and

1. Each statement made by Q and S among the 10th pleadings of the Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap954 case;

1. Statement made in B in the Chuncheon District Court 2013Guhap954 case No. 113

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant A by each prosecutor;

1. Investigation report (to hear reports on theRphone statement of witnesses) and part of the registered matters;

1. A resolution on the conclusion of an agreement on the implementation of the creation of public seedlings and an agreement on the implementation thereof;

1. Transmission of reports (including the distribution of seedlings) as a result of deliberation by the Si/Gun/Gu Mediation Committee and results of holding the Mediation Committee;

1. An agreement (the first agreement);

1. A standard contract for private construction works;

1. Deliberation on the division and distribution of burial grounds;

1. Review of the implementation of agreements with the E intersection;

1. Notification of consignment contract and settlement of the expenses for the creation of a G cemetery;

1. Notification of the expiration of the term of entrustment of the operation and management of a G cemetery;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (Consideration to the defendant who does not have any previous error)

The reason for sentencing.

Even when considering the fact that Defendants have no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, perjury is a serious criminal that may lead the judicial branch to find a substantial truth and to realize the judicial justice, and all other circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are added to the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, and the sentence shall be determined as ordered in the sentencing guidelines within the scope of recommended punishment [the category of perjury, the category of Type I (Perjury), and the basic area: imprisonment of six months to one year and six months].