If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On March 21, 2018, around 14:00, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Defendant’s indecent conduct case against the said court, at the court of Daejeon District Court, 34-15, and 207, the Gongju branch of Daejeon District Court, 2017, J. 421, 201.

The Defendant “C was the witness that the Defendant collected from the witness the victim’s bucks inside, and the Defendant could not see the witness because of excessive play.

“The phone was called”

80,000,000,00

“I have become aware of” when asking questions.

C There is no fact later in currency.

And C is not on the job, and there is no person on the job only.

The Prosecutor answer “,” and the Prosecutor knows how to know it.

In making inquiries as “D this fests......”

The answer to “A” and the prosecutor asked “C is essential for the witness test.” It is not necessary to read “C”.

“C” and “C does not have a telephone call.”

The defense counsel answers "," and there is no fluent period in which she called "a witness or a person who was at the time of eating by telephone to C at night."

“I shall not . C and I shall not have made a telephone to ask questions.”

“Written answer,” and the defense counsel’s “not required to have a telephoneed

It is necessary to see why it is ‘I see why it is?’.

The defense counsel called “(D)”, and the defense counsel’s finite finite

Materne v. Doctrine,

C. The question of “I am about D I I am about D I I am.”

The author was C and was in telephone call.

“The answer was made.”

However, the facts are from June 24, 2017, after the compulsory indecent act case occurred.

7. up to 8.8. There was a fact that he / she had a telephone call with C by posting a telephone over eight occasions.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Recording notes 421 of the order of 2017;

1. Documentary evidence of the currency;