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

On April 28, 2016, the Defendant appeared at the court of Ulsan District Court No. 303 located in Ulsannam-gu Office, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, as a witness, and took an oath against the Defendant’s attempted fraud with respect to the above court No. 2015Da1947 B and C.

The defendant testified that "I know that I would like to know that I would like to divide into low-level simplerity because I would have known that the shares of the DBS and EBS are not the shares of the actual witness, but the shares of the ABS are in trust." The defendant testified that "I would like to give I would like to the prosecutor's "I would like to have borrowed the name of the witness. I would like to give I would like to the prosecutor's "I would like to be given a divided order. I would like to ask "(stocks)", and the prosecutor's "I would like to hold the witness's shares." The defendant testified to the question "I would like to say that I would not have any problem in the process of stock transfer even if there is any problem in the process of stock transfer."

However, the shares of the DBA and E in the name of the defendant were owned by the F in fact-friendly F.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint;

1. Recording notes or recording records;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant of the judgment and his defense counsel cannot be deemed as a false statement against the defendant's memory. The defendant's testimony cannot be deemed as a false statement against the defendant's memory, and since there was a legal evaluation or mistake on the actual attribution of ownership of stock title trust, it cannot be deemed that the defendant

In light of the aforementioned evidence, the above argument shall not be accepted, since the aforementioned evidence can be sufficiently recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;