위증교사
Defendants are not guilty.
1. On June 7, 2011, the Defendants: (a) invested KRW 1.3 billion in connection with the purchase of the land for electric power source and the penty project; (b) obtained the construction permit under the name of Defendant B’s H by doing business with Defendant B; (c) upon completion of the construction work, Defendant B received the loan and agreed with Defendant A to transfer the ownership of the said land and building to Defendant B; (d) Defendant A borrowed KRW 100 million from Defendant A for purchase and construction cost of the said land; (c) Defendant A subsequently, around June 7, 2011, obtained a notarial deed from Defendant B, instead of preparing a loan certificate for a part of KRW 1.6 billion to Defendant A after completion of the construction work; and (d) Defendant B did not run the construction work and transferred the said land and building rights directly to Defendant B and the remainder of the construction work to Defendant A around 201. < Amended by Act No. 110000, Jun. 1, 2011>
Accordingly, the Defendants thought that Defendant A does not demand the interest of the third part of the month agreed upon at the time of borrowing KRW 100 million from Defendant B to Defendant B, on December 13, 2011, that “B borrowed KRW 1.5 billion from the purchase price on May 26, 201, and that “B returned KRW 1.5 billion from the purchase price and received KRW 1.6 billion from H receive the loan,” and that Defendant A, not Defendant B, was aware of the fact that the above KRW 1.6 billion was to be repaid to Defendant B, on the total amount of KRW 1.6 billion.”
Defendant
A Although the Defendant knew the above facts, the Defendant came from I.