The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

The defendant is the head of C-E under the Trade Union D, and F has served as the head of E-General, respectively.

On June 2, 2017, on the claim for damages of 2016 Ghana 243156, which the Defendant raised against CF, was present at the court of Seoul Western District Court 418 on June 2, 2017 and sworn as a witness, and testified. The facts are as follows: F withdraws 40 million won on December 11, 2014 in cash and deliver to the Defendant a double 35 million won, and the Defendant borrowed 40 million won from F, despite the existence of the fact that F made up and made up for a copy of the loan that the Defendant borrowed 40 million won from F.

F. The extent to which the F.I.D. E. F. S. witness in cash has been delivered to the F. I. It is true that the memory will be memory.

J. S. Doz. Doz. Doz.

To answer the question of “,” and to answer the question of “as much as possible,” “ If so, as F so argued, she will be present, to see the business of the Republic of Korea and its reserve fund, she will be fluencing to the extent that she would be fluencing.

“To the extent of memory,” and “to the extent of memory, to the extent of 1,000

In response to the question of “,” the Plaintiff made a false statement against his memory to the effect that “F was paid KRW 10 million out of KRW 40 million that was withdrawn on December 11, 2014,” and presented perjury.

Judgment

The facts charged of this case is premised on the fact that the defendant’s memory was “F’s withdrawal of KRW 40 million on December 11, 2014 and delivery of KRW 35 million among them to the defendant.”

Although F’s statement was made as evidence supporting such premise, F’s statement is not consistent from the investigative agency to this court, and is not consistent and specific. In particular, the statement of F’s statement to the effect that “after withdrawal of KRW 40 million, it would bring about KRW 35 million out of the business fund of the children kept in the house, not the said money, and delivered it to the Defendant.” Thus, F’s statement is believed.