beta
Text
Defendant
A A shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2 million won.
The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2015 fixed37]
1. Defendant A testified that, around September 4, 2013, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the loan return case in Suwon District Court No. 301, Suwon District Court No. 301, which had been located in Sinju-si, Sinju-si, the above court, at the court of law, Defendant D testified that, “A witness shall acquire from construction business operator E one copy of the loan acceptance agreement for the payment of the construction cost from construction business operator E in 2006 and has not been resold after receiving KRW 75 million from F,” and “I would like to introduce to F, instead of a pre-sale, the agreement for the payment of the construction cost at issue,” and “I would like to give testimony that the witness resells to the Plaintiff.”
However, the defendant did not introduce E and G, but directly become a contracting party to G and delivered the above acceptance agreement, and G purchased the above acceptance agreement from the defendant.
Ultimately, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.
2. Around November 7, 2013, Defendant B appeared and taken an oath at the court of Suwon District Court No. 307, Sinju District Court Branch, which was located in Sinju-dong, as a witness of the above court’s 2013Gahap682, and testified that “the Defendant testified that he had acquired several copies of the agreement on acceptance of substitute for the payment of the construction cost,” but he had acquired the said agreement on acceptance of substitute for the payment of the construction cost,” and “the Defendant was not aware that he was aware that he was aware of the fact that he was acquiring the said agreement on acceptance of substitute for the payment of the construction cost,” and that he was introduced to G upon request, instead of having acquired the said brokerage office, the Defendant testified that he was aware that he was aware of the fact that he was going to know that he was to purchase and sell the question, and that he was aware of the fact that he was aware that he acquired and introduced the said agreement on acceptance of substitute for the payment of the construction cost.
However, at the time.