Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 18, 2013, the Defendants appeared to take an oath as a witness of the fraud case against E, Daejeon District Court No. 2012No329, which was proceeding in the Daejeon District Court, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, and testified as follows.

1. Defendant A stated that the defense counsel of the above case E stated that “I will have withdrawn on October 29, 2004 from the Agricultural Cooperative account and asked Defendant 50 million won or more around that time.” The above defense counsel stated that “I do not have any money received from F on October 2004 in return for the request for provisional attachment or issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression to another person regarding the cancellation.” The above defense counsel stated that “I do not do so,” and ③ the witness made withdrawal from the above Agricultural Cooperative Account of the above witness on October 29, 2004, KRW 50 million,000,000,000 and the invested principal received from F on October 204.”

However, on October 29, 2004, the Defendant did not lend KRW 50 million, which was withdrawn from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, to E, but deposited it into the account of “B” immediately. The said F had been paid KRW 49.5 million to the Defendant through H in order to cancel the said provisional seizure, knowing that the Defendant’s share in the land of Daejeon Jung-gu was provisionally seized on real estate, and that the Defendant had the Defendant cancelled the provisional seizure on the said G land on October 25, 2004.

As above, the Defendant testified with a false statement contrary to his memory.

2. Defendant B

A. On October 29, 2004, the Defendant sent out KRW 50 million to the B account from October 29, 2004, which was deposited by the Defendant to the B account, the said defense counsel’s answer that the transaction with the witness “in relation to the witness, the witness did not have the witness but did not know about the details of the transaction.