The Defendant, who was aware of C’s post-line connection with C and C, was under guard due to the charge of smuggling’s carrying in of writingphones. The Defendant had expressed a false testimony to the effect that C and C did not instruct C to carry in writingphones for the purpose of sending a letter to C, who had no contact with C during the guard period, after having applied for the Defendant as a witness, and asked C to testify.

On February 26, 2016, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Incheon District Court No. 317 located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City District Court No. 317, Feb. 26, 2016, after attending the case of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. against Gohap 675, the above court, and after making a good appearance, the Defendant asked that “C would not be called as “A” but as D only, for the question that “A’s attorney at around October 2011, would go against the travelling bank to Guam.”

The answer to "," and the prosecutor's "I am to go to the Guam only," and C means that I am to go to the Guam and that I am to go to the Guam.

“...........” for the question

testimony, “....... the C and D have sent a person who will transport philopon with the witness,” and “......... in other words D and D have sent the person who will transport philopon.”

The answer to "," and the prosecutor's "the witness" send more persons to the Philippines on December 2, 201.

In addition, we answer to the question of “N” and answer to “N” and “N” in the question of whether the circumstances in which E, other than E, included the F, is the intention of having no relationship with C.

However, on October 201, 201, C and D, together with the Defendant, agreed that the Defendant would reflect the travel bags for the travel in which the phonephone was located to Guam, and that the Defendant came to the Philippines by seeking more than one person other than E from C around December 201, and included E and F, thereby becoming the Defendant.

In this respect.