The question of “A person who is engaged in the same kind of business” is called “A person who is in the same place of business at that time, and asked to drink as at that time.”

2. The complainant received and used 2-30 million won from the account designated by the complainant D to the account.

The facts are required to be established.

The prosecutor’s question “(s)” responded to the prosecutor’s question.

However, although C did not introduce D as a bond business partner, C was only remitted to C, and D did not forward money to the defendant.

The Defendant made a false statement differently from his memory and presented perjury.

2. The fact that the defendant received D from C at the place and the defendant knew that C is running the bond business around that time, and the fact that the defendant borrowed money at the request of C seems to be apparent.

D It is the fact that C merely introduced C as a mere her partner, and there is no fact that it engaged in the bond business.

However, the defendant, while making the testimony at issue, was called as a person who runs the business of operating a bond business not clearly but runs the business of operating the bond business.

“The bond business” did not clearly enter the horse.

On the other hand, C is the same in this Court.

“....”

was testified.

C One word and the defendant received part of money from C later in the name of D (Evidence 1 submitted by the defendant) and later eight years after the date when the defendant testified was introduced.