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

On September 21, 2016, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the assault case against the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2 in Gwangjin-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the facts are true at the time when B and C contested at the entrance of the park, and even if B and C were at the face of D in that process, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the assault case against the above court No. 2016 order No. 1943 B and taken an oath, and then, the defense counsel’s “at the time of Defendant B’s taking an oath.”

“I shall not” in the drinking of “I”.

The testimony, “I did not have any fact at the time of considering the whole” in the physical appearance, “I do not have any fact at the time of Defendant B’s testimony,” and “I do not have any fact at the time of considering the whole.”

“I testimony” and, at the entrance of the prosecutor’s “(D)”, told the prosecutor to be aware of (fighting) fighting.

The testimony "..." is made on the physical records of "," and the prosecutor's "whether there was no D at that time."

The testimony was made as “for example..” on the physical record of “.....”.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A copy of the judgment (No. 16 High Court Order 1943); and

1. Copies of each protocol of examination of the witness to the accused or D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of each recording note to the defendant or D;

1. Article 152 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was proved to the effect that the Defendant did not assault D, which is a witness with regard to important matters directly connected to the sex of the crime, and that the Defendant had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition several times of a crime, considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, and the Defendant recognized the criminal act in an investigative agency and this court (the confession of the above case 1943 case was made after the final decision of 1943 case), and thus, Article 153 of the Criminal Act does not apply.