A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On July 14, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Defense at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 14, 2018.

[Criminal facts] On July 14, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Defense at the Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”), and was willing to file a complaint with perjury B, C, D, and E who appeared and testified as a witness of the above judgment.

On October 2017, the Defendant had an attorney-at-law prepare a false complaint on B, etc. in the B, etc. in the first place of police officers.

A written complaint is that “Defendant B, on April 14, 2017, attended as a witness of the Seoul Southern District Court 2017 High Court 51 Gohap, Seoul Southern District Court 2017 High Court 51 U.S. judicial violation case, the complainant loaned KRW 10 million to Defendant B at the request of Defendant B on May 7, 2014 for travel expenses with women, and thereafter, on July 14, 2014, he/she borrowed money from Defendant B, which he/she had to pay from Defendant B, with the loan of KRW 20 million, and borrowed money from Defendant B under the name of Defendant B, who was requested to pay KRW 30 million, and he/she did not receive KRW 10 million under the name of Defendant B, who was requested to do so by Defendant B and received KRW 1 million under the name of Defendant B, and he/she did not receive KRW 90 million under the name of Defendant B, who was so requested.

On the other hand, a false statement was made to the effect that 30 million won loan certificate was prepared and presented to the effect that 30 million won loan certificate was presented. In the event that Defendant C appeared and testified as a witness, the complainant did not introduce the I attorney-at-law on the H case, and the facts did not appear to be between I attorney-at-law and I attorney-at-law in connection with the case B.