A. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant was detained in the first intersection of the North Korean Peninsula, the Defendant was aware of the fact on July 30, 2012.

B, while borrowing business funds from B, he/she prepared a letter of complaint stating that “A” and “B” were “B” and lost in the first instance trial by being bound to return the loan, despite the fact that he/she had prepared a loan certificate stating “10 million won per day (10,000,000 won)” from the above B, the above prison shall be the Defendant Nonparty B. In the above prison, the Defendant Nonparty B prepared a letter of complaint stating that “Although the complainant did not have prepared and executed a loan certificate as to KRW 10,000,00,000, he/she shall be punished because he/she forged a certificate of borrowing and forged a private document by using a civil trial,” the Defendant Nonparty sent it by mail and received it to the public service center of the Seongbuk-gu Police Station on July 8, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a false complaint with the aim of having the above B subject to criminal punishment, and brought a false complaint against B.

B. On November 26, 2015, the Defendant was present at the court of Suwon District Court No. 121, 2015Na20466, and took an oath as a witness of the instant case [the Plaintiff B and Defendant C (the mother of the Defendant)] to be distributed dividends from Suwon District Court No. 121, 2015, and received a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant’s agent, and the said certificate of borrowing will be prepared by the witness.

G. G. G. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.W.

(1) The witness bears the burden of proving that he or she has made the certificate of borrowing to the creditor B.

There is no fact that the loan certificate was prepared for the question “I”.

The testimony is made and the above loan certificate Article 3 provides that "The amount of money for establishing the first priority right holder (C) shall be actively known to each state agency that the amount of money for establishing the security right is false," and there is no fact that the witness made the above contents to the Plaintiff.

The term “interpellation” used a certificate of borrowing.