However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On June 9, 2017, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the Suwon District Court No. 201, Suwon District Court No. 201, which is located in Sinju-si, Sinju-si, Sindong-si, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath against the above court No. 2017 High Court No. 64 B, and then came to know of the defense counsel "I know whether or not the witness knows that people are stuffed in Cpenta, or not."

(2) The witness was unaware of whether he / she was stuffed or not in C penta

He was unaware of the prosecutor's question.

【The testimony was made.”

However, it was well known that the Defendant was booming with D’s phone that he was boomed by Cshion, so it was well known that people were booming in Cshion.

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 protocol concerning the police and suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Court rulings 2017 Highest 64 Highest 64 court rulings;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each protocol of examination of witness, each protocol of examination of witness;

1. Relevant Article 152 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommended punishment] The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act shall be as follows: (a) contingent crimes [the person subject to special mitigation] [the sentence] in the area of mitigation (one month to October] [the person subject to special mitigation] of imprisonment for April] 1 year (the decision of sentence] in prison for 4 years (the defendant has a history of being subject to several criminal punishment, and perjury is against the unfavorable circumstances, such as the circumstance that there is a need for strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the State's judicial function and that there is a need for strict punishment as a crime undermining the State's judicial function, and the crime of this case is not likely to have a significant impact on the judgment on the existence of