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

On March 25, 2014, at around 16:30, the Defendant appeared as a witness of "the fraud case against Defendant C and D," in the Gwangju District Court 402, located in Gwangju Dong-dong District Court 402.

The above case was a fraudulent case with the purport that D and C conspired to the effect that "if they make an investment because they have a good investment place, they would pay a considerable amount of profit" to the victims, D and C were responsible for each other, and the defendant was present at the above court as a witness of C.

The Defendant appeared in the court and testified after oath as above, despite the absence of the fact that D had recommended investment to E and F who was an instructor of the Gwangju Female, the Defendant issued a false statement contrary to memory by the attorney-at-law called “I are not aware that D had also recommended investment to E and F who was an instructor of the Gwangju Female,” and issued a false statement contrary to memory.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel testified different from facts, but they do not go against memory.

First of all, the Defendant appeared to the effect that C had a telephone conversation with F and gave C a picture to investment solicitation repeated by F.

However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, C and D were arguing that they did not recommend other victims to make investments, and thereby, it can be recognized that the lawsuit was pending, and that F did not have any means to make investments from D. Thus, C and the Defendant’s statement that F sent D’s investment recommendations to C by telephone is difficult to believe.

Therefore, the testimony is consistent with memory.