Defendant

Park Woo-won (Court) and Kim Young-young (Court)

Law Firm Barun (LLC, Attorneys Kim Yong-chul et al.)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

피고인은 공소외 1, 공소외 66(원심: 피고인 2) 등과 함께 ‘○○○’, ‘△△△’ 등의 해외 유명 스포츠토토 도박 사이트를 국내에 중계하는 사이트(‘▶▶▶▶▶▶', '▽▽▽▽-▽▽▽')를 운영하는 자이고, 공소외 31은 위 운영을 도운 자이다.

피고인의 스포츠토토 도박 사이트 운영 공범인 공소외 66은 2015. 4. 22. 23:00경 경찰에서 도박 사이트 운영 혐의로 조사를 받고 난 뒤 중한 처벌이 예상되자 도피할 것을 마음먹고 피고인에게 연락하였고, 이에 피고인은 공소외 31에게 연락하여 ‘공소외 66이 경찰에 쫓기고 있으니 숨어 지낼 곳을 마련해달라’고 부탁하였다. 이에 공소외 31은 피고인, 공소외 53(공소외 31의 양아버지로 ▲▲사 주지) 및 모친 공소외 54와 공모하여 2015. 4. 23.경부터 2015. 9.경까지 경남 합천군 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 공소외 54의 집 등지에 은신처를 마련하여 공소외 66을 머물게 하는 방법으로 범인을 은닉하였다.

Nevertheless, when Nonindicted 31 was prosecuted and tried for committing an offense, such as concealment of the above offender, the Defendant appeared in the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan8356 decided Feb. 23, 2017, which was located in Seocho-dong, Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan8356 decided Feb. 14, 2017, as a witness for the following testimony:

① The witness responded to the prosecutor’s question, “I had no contact from Nonindicted 66 and no contact with the Defendant was made,” and “I had no contact with the Defendant”, “I had no contact with the Defendant. I called “I had a phone to Nar. I had a phone?”

② The witness answers to the prosecutor’s question, “after Nonindicted 66 was informed that he was prohibited from departing from the Defendant and Nonindicted 66, there was no intention to have the Defendant escape from the Defendant. I talk with the Defendant. I talk with Nonindicted 1.”

③ Nonparty 66 was prohibited from departure, and answer to the Prosecutor’s question, “I need not have any fact with the Defendant,” stating how is.

④ The witness answer to the prosecutor’s question, “I need not directly contact the Defendant and directly contact Nonindicted 54, the Defendant’s mother, and talked that “I would like to conceal Nonindicted 66.”

⑤ The Defendant answer to the public prosecutor’s question, “I do not know at the time, and her mother calls her mother only at the time,” following the Defendant’s call with the witness, that “I would like to conceal Nonparty 66 and I would like not to directly request.”

6. The Defendant asked Non-Indicted 54, his mother, Non-Indicted 56, to conceal Non-Indicted 66, and the Defendant asked Non-Indicted 54, to “I do not see..... I do so and, at the second and second times, her mother fly fly fly fly her mother. I asked the Defendant that “I will fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere,” and asked the Defendant that “I fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere, fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fhere fher,

7) The witness answers to the prosecutor’s question at the Defendant’s home that “I have stated that there was no doubt in advance with the Defendant about the background leading up to the concealment of Nonindicted 66,” and answer to the prosecutor’s question at “I have not made a false statement in favor of the Defendant regarding the concealment of Nonindicted 66 at the Defendant’s home”, and answer to the prosecutor’s question at “I have not made a false statement in favor of the Defendant regarding the concealment of Nonindicted 66 at the Defendant’s home.”

8) The Defendant responded to the question of the judge “I have to see that I would am now, I would like to see her address, I would like to see her mother’s address. I would have known her address.”

9) On the other hand, i.e., “the question of the judge of ‘,’ which is not asked to the Defendant, but asked to the Defendant’s mother, i.e., whether or not the Defendant was asked to the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant rather than the Defendant, and her phone to the mother. ii) The mother visited the Defendant and sent a large number of fake cards to the Defendant on the new wall, and ii) i.e., the Defendant was asked to see whether it is difficult to understand the fact that the Defendant was immediately a witness rather than the Defendant through the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant’s question, but from the point of view, i., e., i., i., e., whether he was well in the Defendant’s question, and i.e., whether he was well in the prosecution 31”, and ii) answer “Seoul.”

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory and raised perjury.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Search of Nonindicted 31B’s case

1. Protocol of examination of the witness of the accused accused of the person under investigation;

1. Investigation report (Evidence records 139 pages);

1. Non-Indicted 31’s judgment (2016 Highest 8356)

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 152 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment)

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

Category 1 (Perjury) of the above-mentioned Heonmonon>> The basic area ( June to June)

2. Determination of sentence;

Perjury is a serious need for severe punishment because of the size of social harm, such as creating confusion and incompetence in the judicial action of the State, by an act hindering the discovery of substantial truth by a judicial institution and the appropriate exercise of judicial power through this, etc. In addition, although the perjury of the defendant did not have an effect on the result of the trial, it is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant that was about

In this regard, the court below sentenced the defendant to four years and six months of imprisonment at the appellate court due to the fact that the defendant's crime of this case is recognized as late, there is no record of the same crime, and the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), and the fact that the defendant is still in the court of final appeal, and other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the

Judges Kang Jin-ju