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

around May 14, 2008, the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness in a lawsuit, such as the recovery of possession, etc., Incheon District Court 2007Kahap18498, the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory when the agreement was made that the Hel sales contract shall be null and void between D, E, F, and G on August 25, 2005, despite the receipt of a copy of the above agreement from G and the well-known fact of the above agreement, the Defendant’s agent made a false statement when “I know that the above sales contract was made null and void as of August 25, 2005.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol of examination of witnesses G in the second protocol of trial;

1. The protocol of examination of witnesses D in the sixth trial records;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Copy of a copy of the examination record;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written agreement;

1. Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the punishment of detention in the workhouse have been proved by the defendant, but the agreement to invalidate the Helel sales contract (the agreement itself does not stipulate that the sales contract shall be null and void, but it is clear that the above sales contract shall be null and void, in light of the circumstances before and after the formation of the above sales contract) was prepared, and there was a existence of the defendant's testimony. Thus, there was no possibility of a change in the fact-finding as to the establishment of the agreement to invalidate the sales contract by the defendant's testimony, and there was also the issue of the Incheon District Court case in which the defendant testified.