When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant and B are currently in a divorce lawsuit due to marital relationship.

At around 16:30 on August 29, 2017, the Defendant testified in the Seoul Central District Court Panel No. 421 of Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court 2017No1845B as a witness of the assault case at the Seoul Central District Court 2017No1845 B, and testified that “the witness who is trying to examine the above case “I do not have any question whether there is the head of the Defendant at the time of the instant case”, and “the head of the son bears no dancing”, and “I give testimony to the question whether I would like to go back the Defendant’s head.”

However, at the time of the above case, the defendant was found to have earned the head of the above B.

As above, the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory and raised perjury.

To the extent that there is no substantial disadvantage in the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense, part of the work records were amended.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Copy of the protocol of examination of witness in the Seoul Central District Court 2017No1845;

1. A copy of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2017 High Court 522 High Court, and a copy of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2017No1845 Supreme Court shall apply to the statutes applicable;

1. Relevant Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant and his/her defense counsel stated the victim’s head as his/her memory, not an important issue of the case, when he/she was examined at the time when he/she had been examined for three months since he/she performed a general anesthesia surgery. Thus, the Defendant goes against his/her memory.