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

At around 16:00 on September 26, 2017, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the revocation case of fraudulent act against the Daejeon District Court No. 2016Kadan15477 of the said court in the Daejeon District Court No. 5, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and testified to the effect that “AC Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. filed an application for lien because it did not receive a part of the construction cost for the pelpar work suspended from the D and 2 parcels to the second floor, and there was a judgment that recognized the existence of lien by the court.”

However, in fact, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Kadan2132 decided September 5, 2014 and the Decision 2016Kahap103081 decided September 8, 2017, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Gadan2132 decided on September 8, 2017, that the lien of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Gahap103081 decided on September 8, 201 was difficult to deem that the lien of the Daejeon District Court had existed. The certificate of lien related to the lien prepared between E and the defendant F was falsely prepared. Although the court reported the lien to the auction court related to the above Galley Construction, there was no

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of E and G;

1. Certificate No. 5;

1. Evidence No. 9 (2014No. 2132 court rulings), materials to be submitted to suspects (2014Gadan2132 court rulings);

1. A certificate of prescribed in subparagraph 9 (a written agreement on a lien);

1. A report on rights under a lien;

1. The Defendant alleged that there was a false testimony to the effect that there was a judgment as to the right of retention on the part of the court due to lack of legal knowledge, and that there was no intention of perjury. However, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendant prepared and issued a written confirmation to the F around September 10, 2010 that “E who was awarded a successful bid for the building in the above construction shall recognize the F’s amount of 530 million won, which is the amount of the lien against F,” and E sells the above building to H on June 20, 2013.