except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 2, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the crime of forging private documents at the Busan District Court on October 2, 2008, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 30th of the same month, and is still in the grace period.

1. An accusation;

The Defendant, as a result of the detection of a transit-related fact, was accused of a transit-related suspicion from V, which is the Cityberter, and the divorce lawsuit was instituted, and the company operating the divorce lawsuit also took advantage of the situation where it was driving away, and the above V used a tool to take advantage of a favorable position in the divorce lawsuit, etc. for the purpose of having the above V file criminal punishment.

On September 26, 2006, the defendant prepared a written complaint to the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office at the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office located in the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office on September 26, 2006, stating that "V has damaged the reputation by making use of a computer in his own house located in the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office," and submitted it to the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office on September 26, 2006. On November 2, 2006, the Busan Public Prosecutor's Office investigation and economic2 team located in the Busan Jindong-dong-dong, Busan Special Metropolitan City on September 9, 2006, the defendant appeared at the Busan Public Prosecutor's Office at the Busan Public Prosecutor's Office and 2 team on September 9, 2006 and stated to the effect that "V has made a false statement to the investigation agency for the purpose of having a criminal punishment imposed upon V, and thus, the defendant made a false statement to V on the investigation agency."

2. A perjury;

On May 4, 2007, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath at the Busan District Court No. 352, the Busan District Court No. 2007Kadan753, which was located in the Busan Seo-dong, as a witness of the above case, such as defamation against Defendant V.

In addition, despite the fact that the defendant had access to the company's employees, the above case is being tried.

The testimony was made to the effect that the above judge of the court 8 Germany testified that "the fact that he had been engaged in the company's employees and the telecom with the company's employees is not true or simple."

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

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 156 and 152(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Statutory mitigation (unauthorized confessions and confessions respectively of perjury);

Articles 157, 153, and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

3. Handling of concurrent crimes;

(a) The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) former part of Article 37, and Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

4. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act