Defendant

Maximum stone

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly)

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act and the charge of perjury on April 30, 2005 at Non-Indicted 1’s house is not guilty.

The Defendant is a real estate broker. On January 24, 2006, at around 14:30, the Defendant took an oath and testified as a witness in the civil trial of the case of the claim for down payment, etc. filed by Nonindicted 2 against Defendant 1 by Nonindicted 2 against Defendant 1, as a witness in the civil trial of the case of claiming down payment, etc.

1. The facts reveal that the Defendant is entitled to KRW 69,00,000 for the facilities premium for the 100,000 won for the 100,000 won for the 100,000 won for the facilities premium for the 100,000 Won for the 100,000 building from the 103th of the 103th of the building "(trade name omitted)" owned by the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s agent would be entitled to KRW 100,000 for the 10,000 for the 2nd of the building and the 70,000,000 won for the facilities premium for the 10,000,000 won for the 2nd of the building, and the 3rd of the 103th of the ground (trade name omitted) so that the Defendant would receive KRW 70,000 for the 10,000,000 for the 2nd of the building.

2. The facts revealed in the above position that the Defendant and Nonindicted 4 were responsible for the rental deposit of KRW 100 million for the “(trade name omitted) building” operated by Nonindicted 1 and for the premium for facilities. However, the Defendant’s agent testified with the Defendant’s testimony that the Plaintiff and his family members, such as the witness, may be responsible for the facility premium up to the outstanding payment date, and that the witness and Nonindicted 4, in relation to the “(trade name omitted)” operated by the Defendant, were liable for the deposit deposit of KRW 100 million for the “(trade name omitted)” and the premium for facilities?

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. Protocol of examination of witness;

1. A certificate;

1. Each letter;

The Defendant asserts that the above testimony is true. However, in full view of the contents of Non-Indicted 1’s written testimony as well as Non-Indicted 1’s written testimony and Non-Indicted 4’s written testimony as of April 30, 2005 (Evidence No. 16) and the written statement as of May 14, 2005 (Evidence No. 17) of the Defendant’s preparation, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he will be held liable on April 30, 2005. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Section 1 of Article 152 of each Criminal Code (Selection of Fines; Consideration of the initial offender)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act;

Of the facts charged, the defendant arranged a sales contract to sell the building on April 30, 200 to the non-indicted 2 at the size of 69 square meters on the Daejeon Seodong (Seongdong omitted) land owned by the non-indicted 1 and 103 square meters on its ground. The fact is that the above building is sold at an ordinary rate of 4 million won, so if the building is sold, it would be 70 million won by leasing the building at an ordinary rate of 5 million won. It would be held that the defendant would be held liable for 10 million won from the lessee to purchase and sell the building at the price of the above 70 million won. The defendant would not be held liable for 10 million won and 70 million won from the buyer, so it would be difficult for the non-indicted 1 to conclude a sales contract to purchase and sell the building at the price of the above 70 million won, which would have been calculated by taking into account the above facts charged by the non-indicted 1 to the effect that the defendant's purchase and sale of the building at issue.

2. Partial perjury;

Of the facts charged, when the defendant gives testimony as a witness at the civil trial No. 2005dan49192, the facts are false testimony on April 30, 2005 by finding the defendant, the plaintiff, and the defendant as the house of non-indicted 1, including the non-indicted 2 couple, the mother, the kys, etc. on April 30, 2005, as well as seven members of the non-indicted 1's house on the amount of the purchase price, and reducing the purchase price from KRW 710 million to KRW 10 million on the above market, despite the fact that "the plaintiff requested the defendant to reduce the purchase price from KRW 710 million to KRW 10 million and the purchase price is KRW 70 million,000,000,000,000 for the defendant's agent's testimony to the effect that "There is no evidence that the plaintiff and the defendant had a price interest in the building before the date of the above 300,000 won."

Judges Seo-young