If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On August 21, 2012, the Defendant appeared as a witness on August 21, 2012 in the trial as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 201Ma4295, and Do Do Do 1333 decided that the Defendant’s testimony unfavorable to D was guilty of perjury.

On October 26, 2012, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the so-called so-called so-called so-called “Defendant-Appellant D” to the police officer of the So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called “A” to the effect that “The Defendant-Appellant D testified that he was a regular employee of the above company when he takes an oath and gives testimony despite he is not working for A in the Defamation Court against the Defendant.

However, fact is that D was a fixed employee of E Co., Ltd.

In this respect, the defendant was arrested for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. The police statement of the defendant;

1. Complaints of the accused;

1. A certificate of employment, a withholding receipt for wage and salary income, a summary order related thereto, search and output of B-related cases, details of D benefit account (on December 1, 201; - November 30, 2012); and a protocol of examination of witnesses;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (report on the F relative Confirmation of Witnesses);

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;