2017No2223 Meritoriouss, perjurys

A

Both parties

Sheet, Kim Jong-chul (Court of Second Instance)

Law Firm BF, Attorneys BG and BH

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gohap3 decided June 30, 2017

May 3, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant:

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) The point of the perjury teacher

(1) The lower court’s indirect or circumstantial evidence alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the Defendant’s perjury was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. In full view of the fact that F’s statement is direct evidence and factual only that conforms to the facts charged in this part, and that F’s statement is not consistent, ② its statement is reversed several times in the prosecutor’s investigation, ③ there was no reason to instigate F’s perjury, ③ there was no reason to instigate F to make a false statement, whereas F had no motive to make a false statement, ④ the F did not receive or promised to receive the perjury in return for the perjury, the F’s statement that the Defendant instigated the perjury is not credibility.

(2) The testimony made by F is merely a case where the question per se is ambiguous, or where the F makes an answer by misunderstanding the purport of questioning, which is consistent with F’s memory, and thus, cannot be deemed as perjury.

(3) Even according to the F’s statement, F cannot be deemed to have been perjury upon the request of the Defendant.

B) The point of perjury

(1) The Defendant’s “F made a P’s solicitation for employment” is one time only. The testimony of “I” cannot be a perjury by mistake.

(2) Defendant’s testimony that “There is no fact that F, etc. visited E Assembly room in connection with the adjustment of Q business between G and T,” and testimony that “No fact that F, etc. has aided E Council members’ schedule or arranged for an interview with the president of G during the audit process of the Board of Audit and Inspection,” did not prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that each of the above testimony goes against Defendant’s memory.

(3) The testimony that the defendant (which was under investigation by the prosecutor) made a P solicitation to the defendant F is that the person who made a P solicitation to the defendant's (which was under investigation by the prosecutor's office) has not changed as if the defendant was only the director general of the office U of the member's regional office. It is merely an incidental statement of the defendant's thoughts or opinions about

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Inspection (unfair form)

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. Status of the Defendant and related persons, and the progress of the relevant case

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts are recognized:

1) From June 2008, the Defendant began to serve as a secretary (class VI) of the National Assembly member E and served as an assistant officer (class IV) of the same Council member, F is serving as the Minister of G H (Class I), and I (Class I) from July 2015, and works as the chief of the J Team appointment of the said member of the North Korean District Department from July 2015.

2) G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) is a special corporation established based on the “G Act to efficiently promote L projects as a fund-management-based quasi-governmental institution under the jurisdiction of K.

3) Meanwhile, with respect to the employment of new employees in the latter part of G in 2013, the president M and N chief 0 at the time filed an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing against M andO with the request of the E Assembly members, and on January 6, 2016, a public prosecution was instituted on the grounds of criminal facts such as manipulating interview points, etc. to employ the P who had been employed by the Assembly members. The Suwon District Court rendered a conviction against M andO on May 12, 2017, and sentenced 10 months of imprisonment with labor (the foregoing court Decision 2016Gohap6), and M filed an appeal on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and unfair sentencing against M andO, but the Seoul High Court rejected all of the aforementioned appeal on October 18, 2017 (the foregoing Court Decision 2017No1593). The Supreme Court also rejected the appeal by both Defendants 201 and 2718.208.

5) A public prosecution was instituted against F on the charges of perjury, such as committing perjury in Ansan District Court Decision 2016 High Gohap6. On September 22, 2017, Suwon District Court rendered a guilty verdict of both the above perjury and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), bribery, and the offering of bribe, and a fine of KRW 100 million (the above court).

The judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal on April 24, 2018 (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2859, Apr. 24, 2018). The judgment of the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2859, Apr. 24, 2018). The court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2859, Apr. 2, 2018). The court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2859, Apr. 29, 201). On the other hand, the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2859, Apr. 24, 201) led to confession of the above

6) A public prosecution was instituted against E with regard to the above solicitation of employment, due to abuse of authority, obstruction of exercise of rights, and coercion, etc., and currently pending the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch case 2017Rahap41.

B. The point of the perjury teacher

1) This part of the facts charged

On January 2013, the Defendant was aware that the G executives F, who made a solicitation for employment to P, was adopted as a witness of the Suwon District Court 2016 High Court Branch 2016 high-priced 6 business obstruction case with respect to G employment corruption, and that the date of interrogation was scheduled on June 24, 2016, the Defendant was willing to demand F to make a false testimony as if the E was not reasonable.

On June 15, 2016, around 15:33 and around 22,10:11 of the same month, the Defendant explained the F and telephone calls that there was no external pressure on the employment of E members, while M explained that there was no external pressure on the employment of E members, the Defendant explained the progress of the above 2016Rahap 6 decision. On January 22, 2013, the Defendant instructed F, etc., who visited the member's room as E member Q, to listen to the comments of the assistant to P request. After the audit of P employment was conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection, on November 21, 2014, the Defendant asked the F, etc., who visited the member's room as member, to be aware of the issue of whether M was ordered to employ P request or not, and on the basis that there was no limit to the direct request from the member, the Defendant asked the member's testimony that he could not be known.

Accordingly, at around 16:00 on June 24, 2016, F appeared and took an oath as a witness of the aforementioned court 2016No. 6 M andO in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch, at the court of law No. 301, the aforementioned court 2016Gahap6 M andO. As such, as the Defendant immediately before testimony was requested from the immediately preceding Defendant, F made a statement by denying or reducing the relevance between G employment corruption and E members, and was not well aware of the circumstances of the recruitment solicitation, etc., there was no contact or contact with other members regarding the legal testimony before attending the court. Although the E member’s request was reported to G member’s S, it was false to the effect that the public prosecutor and the defense counsel visited the E member’s office in around 2013, and reported it to the effect that there was no false testimony of the E member or the E member’s testimony in the process of making a false statement to the effect that “the E member or the E member’s testimony was not made.”

2) Whether the Defendant demanded F to give false testimony or not

A) At the court of the court below, F made a telephone call with the Defendant around 15:3 on June 15, 2016 and around 10:11 on June 2, 2016, the day before the examination of witness as stated in this part of the facts charged, and on June 15, 2016, F stated that, at the time, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was not in charge of personnel management, so it would be difficult to know about the recruitment, so it would be difficult to know that he would not know well (FN).” (Public trial record No. 803 through 806 pages).

B) In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that, even if considering the possibility that F made such a statement with the intent of having the intent to take prior action against another crime (Bribery, etc.) in his/her criminal case, according to other evidence duly adopted and investigated, including the statement of the F with credibility, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that F provided perjury, as stated in this part of the facts charged, according to other evidence duly admitted and investigated, including the statement of the F with credibility.

(1) The Defendant also recognized the fact that the Defendant made F and F calls at the above time (the fact that the Defendant and F telephone calls are recognized according to objective evidence, such as the details of mobile communications calls), and recognized the fact that “The E Council member made a prompt request to the effect that “It does not cause any misunderstanding that the E Council member is involved in the employment of P”.

(2) Even though the Defendant requested F to employ PP on January 24, 2013 and June 2013 of the same year, the prosecutorial investigation of November 24, 2015 made a false statement that “I do not request F to employ PP,” (Article 612, 3622 pages). The Defendant stated that “I would like to make a false statement as above, I would like to see whether I would be E Council Members,” and that “I would like to be E Council Members,” and “I would like to act as a person against the Defendant for E Council Members,” and that “I would like to induce F to give a false testimony, as stated in its reasoning, so that I would not be responsible for PP solicitation at the time of the instant case.”

(3) The Defendant called F on June 6, 2016, 25, the day following the testimony of F, and confirmed whether F testified in court (Evidence No. 6, 3524, 3525, 3544).

(4) In perjury, when a witness makes a false statement that goes against his/her memory, the perjury is established if he/she made a statement contrary to his/her memory even if the content is consistent with objective facts (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3827, Feb. 23, 1999). As such, not only an act of forcing a witness to make a testimony that is clearly contrary to objective facts but also an act of forcing a witness to give a testimony that he/she may experience or memory well, but also an act of forcing a witness to give a testimony that he/she is not aware of the fact that he/she experiences or memory.

C) In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant demanded F to make a false testimony as stated in this part of the facts charged. The above fact-finding and the judgment of evidence by the court below are just and acceptable. Accordingly, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's allegation of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

(1) In the prosecutorial investigation conducted on November 17, 2016, F made a statement to the effect that “I had no fact of communicating with E in front of today’s summons or court testimony” (Article 462 of the evidence record No. 1st page), and that “I informed the Defendant that I had been requested to attend the prosecutor’s office, and there was a fact of mutual understanding at the time of testimony in the court (Article 465 through 478 of the steam Records No. 1st page),” and it is true that F’s statement was partially inconsistent with F’s prosecutorial statement on or around November 1, 2013 and around June 201, 2013.

However, F appears to have stated the truth at the first time through a seizure of a mobile phone and an investigation into a large quality with S.) The first statement was reversed, and the first statement was consistently made to the effect that “Before attending the court as a witness, E member was asked by the Defendant not to disclose the fact that E member was involved in the illegal recruitment,” and the statement about the key part is consistent (No. 576 through 578, No. 6, No. 3400, 3478, 3540, 3541, and No. 805, 806 of the trial record).

(2) Meanwhile, in the prosecutorial investigation conducted on November 18, 2016, F made a statement to the effect that "I would like to say that I would not know it if I would not know it if I would know it if I would not know it even if I would be able to know it," and that I would like to say that "I would not know it if I would not know it?" However, I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would not know it because I would like to have her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she was affected by the influence of the E's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her's her her her's her her's her's her's her'sher.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'

(3) On January 6, 2016, before the testimony indicated in this part of the facts charged, the prosecutorial investigation results to the effect that “E is unrelated to the solicitation for employment of the instant P” were announced (see Articles 899 and 890 of the trial records). However, the Defendant, as an assistant to the E Assembly room, should be deemed to have a motive to prevent E Council members from participating in the solicitation for employment again according to F’s testimony.

(4) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the F did not have credibility in the Defendant’s statement on the perjury because the Defendant was not paid or promised to receive the above perjury. However, according to the Kakakakao text between the Defendant and F, F requested a variety of assistance, such as introducing specific persons to ordinary citizens, information from the President to the Defendant abroad, or route for budget deliberation, etc., and the Defendant actively responded (No. 4, No. 1759 through 1761 of the evidence record), ② the contents of the above perjury served with the President and BI Minister, ② the current three members of the National Assembly, and ③ the F was related to E, which is the incumbent three members of the National Assembly, in the prosecutor’s office investigation, ③ the effect of “G,” or E was dry, and there was no choice but to follow the Kakakao text. Accordingly, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant did not properly give testimony was unable to receive the above testimony due to the motive or commitment to the effect that it did not receive the above evidence, etc. (i.e., evidence evidence)., 15787).

(5) The Defendant asserts that F did not have any fact of demanding F to make a false testimony, following the F’s partial statement in the lower court’s court’s trial and the fact that F had no fact of demanding F to make a false testimony.

However, this part of the facts charged is an issue whether the National Assembly member of the National Assembly ordered the National Assembly member of the National Assembly to make a P employment or not, and in the trial, whether the National Assembly member of the National Assembly directly asked the National Assembly member of the National Assembly, and in detail asked the National Assembly member of the National Assembly about the circumstances during which the National Assembly member received the P employment request." "The National Assembly member of the National Assembly is not in charge of personnel management, so it is difficult to know that the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly is not well aware of the fact that the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly." As seen above, it is sufficiently recognized that the facts that the defendant made the above remarks are sufficiently recognized, and even if stated in this part of the facts charged, it does not mean that the defendant explicitly demanded the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly to give a false testimony related thereto. In addition, as properly pointed out by the court below, the act of causing a witness to give a testimony that he does not know about the facts or memory.

In addition, the court below's inquiry about F in the process of witness examination made a clear statement that "the defendant asked F, who is the other party, to what the defendant told that F, so that F, would not be connected with N, and that F, would not have any significant meaning in the question and answer (the question itself is not about objective facts). Meanwhile, F, it stated to the effect that "the defendant told F," in the process of witness examination in the Suwon District Court 2017Kahap41 case, Suyang-gu, Suwon District Court 2017Gahap41 case, "I would like to talk about it as it is." However, the defendant's argument in this part was clearly stated to the effect that "If I had a f, I would like to have a sensitive relation to N, I would like to cause harm to F," and that this part of the defendant's statement could not be accepted easily by extracting only part of F, without disregarding F's statement, and by interpreting it easily.

OF stated in the prosecutor's investigation that "I would tell the defendant's age difference. I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to get a punishment for perjury, but I would like to get it, I would like to say I would like to say. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to change the defendant's statement," and that I would like to say, "I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to answer the witness's statement." I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say," and that I would like to say, "I would like to say I would like to say that I would not have to answer the witness's statement within the chief director's question."

The question and statement to the effect that “I think that I would not have any big difference because I had the speech of the chief executive officer of the U.S.,” also stated to the effect that “I am sworn pressure from all Defendant and M in connection with perjury,” and that “The Defendant continued to contact with the prosecutor from the prosecutor to the court, and presented the direction of the statement with himself, so I would also have been satisfyed even in the court’s statement (Article 808, 1072, 1073 of the trial record).”

(6) Meanwhile, as a result of the prosecutorial investigation conducted on November 17, 2016, F recognized the fact that the Defendant was sent with respect to the testimony in Suwon District Court case 2016 high-priced 6, the prosecutorial investigation conducted on November 18, 2016, and completed a detailed statement as to his perjury and the Defendant’s perjury. However, in the case of F’s bribe, the investigation proviso was found on the cell phone seized on November 17, 2016, and the investigation was conducted from November 20, 2016 (Evidence 636 of the Evidence Record) and this part of the investigation conducted on the Defendant from November 24, 2016. Therefore, F cannot be deemed to have made a false statement with a view to somewhat punishing the Defendant in relation to its bribe case.

3) Whether F was a perjury as described in this part of the facts charged

A) The lower court determined that the F made a false testimony against his memory in light of the following F’s process and purpose of proof, and the situation before and after individual testimony was rendered, with respect to F’s testimony in the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2016 Gohap6 case where the Defendant argued as to the perjury.

(1) Part of the testimony that there was no contact or contact with other persons with regard to the testimony before attending the court as a witness in F’s court.

In relation to this part of the testimony, the defendant asserts to the effect that the testimony is not false because F is limited to F's appearance in the court, not ‘the contents of the statement', but ‘the attendance of a witness', and that F is not a false testimony.

○ At the time of the examination of the witness in the F of the instant case, the counsel of 0 at the time of the examination of the witness, F, with the intention to verify the credibility of the F testimony, and F, with regard to the question that a witness attends the court at present before he attends the court, or that the witness has contacted with any prosecutor of the prosecutors’ office or any other interested persons in connection with the question that the witness makes statements at this court, and F, he responded to F, “I have arrived at this point three times at the house of the request for appearance, and I have received the request later without any contact or conversation with the witness on the issue that the witness attends the court, and the said counsel asked F, “I have the intention to confirm the credibility of the testimony” (Article 5316 of the evidence record No. 3316 of the witness record). Accordingly, in light of the aforementioned purport, I cannot accept the request for testimony or testimony of the Defendant and the witness to the effect that the witness was present at the court or the F, and therefore, I cannot accept the request for testimony or testimony of the witness.

(2) The testimony part of the testimony revealed to the effect that the testimony of F is not false because the F made a request for employment recommendation to other G officers than F is not a report, but a report. Thus, the testimony of F is not false because the F made a request for employment recommendation to E members in relation to E members' request for employment.

○ At the time of the examination of the F of the instant case, M’s defense counsel to F at the time of the examination of the witness to F of the instant case: “The witness asked to F only to the Defendant and asked to other persons that there was no fact,” and “F asked to “I have talked about only one channel of personnel affairs, and no further talked.” (No. 5, No. 3309, 3310 of the evidence record) Meanwhile, during the main examination of F of the public prosecutor before the question and reply, the public prosecutor asked F of whether there was “I would have known to anyone of the G executives of the fact of receiving the solicitation for employment to P” and “I would have testified to the effect that I would have expressed that I would have asked for employment to E member only by the testimony of the public prosecutor (No. 5, No. 3302, 3303 of the evidence record). Accordingly, I would have not accepted the testimony of the public prosecutor to the effect that I would have testified to the effect that I would have not known that I would have given the testimony to other E member.

B) In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the F gave a false testimony as stated in this part of the facts charged against his memory. This part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) In full view of S and M’s statements at each prosecutor’s office and court of the lower court, Defendant’s partial statements at the prosecutor’s office, etc., it is readily recognized that F’s testimony differs from objective facts as stated in this part of the facts charged. Meanwhile, F made a statement to the effect that F made a false testimony against his memory at the prosecutor’s office and court of the lower court.

(2) In light of the specific questions and answers, etc. regarding F arising from the process of questioning the F in the examination of the witness with respect to Suwon District Court case No. 2016Gohap6 case F, it cannot be deemed that the questioning itself was ambiguous, or that F made an answer by misunderstanding the purport of questioning.

(3) As seen earlier, F made a confession in his criminal case and was sentenced to conviction, and the appellate court did not challenge this part.

4) Whether the F’s perjury was attributable to the Defendant’s false testimony demand

A) Whether the testimony portion of F was based on the Defendant’s false testimony

(1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge not having any reasonable doubt, to the extent that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010).

(2) The purport of this part of the facts charged is that with respect to F’s solicitation for employment of P, the Defendant made a statement to F by denying or reducing the relevance of E members as if the E members were not involved, and demanded F to make a false statement that he did not know the circumstances such as the solicitation for employment.

However, it is clear from the testimony itself that F did not state that “F has reported to the S director, etc. of G, or that “the person in charge of personnel affairs only reported to the S director, etc.” was the premise that E member was deferred to the recruitment solicitation, and whether F has delivered or reported the recruitment solicitation to the person in charge of G, cannot be deemed as the part requested by F to give false testimony from the Defendant). Furthermore, this part of the testimony that F did not state that F did not state that “F did not know well about the circumstances of employment solicitation, etc.” at the request of the Defendant.

Examining these circumstances in light of the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant instigated F to make a false testimony. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

B) Whether the remainder of the F testimony was attributable to the Defendant’s false demand for testimony

(1) In a case where the principal committed the crime, whether or not the resolution was derived from the principal’s act of aiding and abetting the principal must be determined by the method of objectively determining the whole progress of the case, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the relationship between the principal and the principal, the content and degree of the principal’s act, the process leading the principal to the crime, the existence of other causes for the principal, even though the principal did not commit the act of aiding and abetting, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2744, Sept. 12, 2013). Meanwhile, in order for the principal to be established, the principal to commit the crime does not need to be the sole condition for the principal to commit the crime, so long as the principal was resolved to commit the crime by the principal’s act of aiding and abetting the principal, even if the principal committed the crime due to another cause, the establishment of the principal’s crime does not affect (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7407, Nov. 15, 2012)

(2) The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances, the G president, who is the superior of F, had maintained the attitude that M had not made a solicitation for employment of E members at the time of the instant case, at the time of Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2016Rahap6, but it may be reasonable that F made a false statement of the part concerning the solicitation for employment of E members in the process of investigation by the previous prosecutor’s office in the process of investigation by the E member was a cause for F to commit perjury; however, in full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that F resolved to commit perjury according to the act of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s facts charged, and that

(A) In the prosecutor’s investigation, F asked the prosecutor’s question that “I would not think that I would make a false statement in the court even if there was no Defendant’s act of aiding and abetting the Defendant,” that “I would like to make a false statement in the prosecutor’s office continuously in the part of the Defendant or E Assembly room. The same is also applicable in this court. We want to be punished by perjury. However, I would like to have why I would like to make a false statement. However, when I testified, I would like to why I would like to make a false statement. I would like to say that I would like to have changed the President’s statement, and even if I would have demanded it, I would not comply with it (No. 3403 of the evidence record).” It does not appear that F had a firm state in which the above crime resolution was adopted prior to the Defendant’s crime of aiding and abetting the Defendant.

(B) In the process of the investigation related to the illegal use of P, the Defendant also recognized the fact that “the Defendant did not make a request for employment to P, and that he received a request for employment from a local office” (Article 6, No. 3553, 3554 of the Evidence Records). The Defendant appears to have requested F to make a false statement in the process of undergoing an investigation by a witness at the prosecution in order to reduce the scope and degree of the E member’s involvement in the E member’s side in relation to the solicitation for employment, and the crime of perjury should also be deemed to have been committed on the upper line.

(C) Unlike making a false statement in the process of investigation by the prosecution, when making a false statement while present in the court as a witness, the risk of being punished for perjury should be borne. In F’s perjury in the court room, it appears that the relationship with the Defendant, status of E members, etc. are considered.

(D) The defendant does not seem to have requested F to testify clearly against objective facts, and the F has instigated F to give testimony that the F would not know or memory well or to know the fact that the F would experience or memory, and the F would have accepted the request of the defendant more easily.

(E) Since it is not necessary to specifically instruct the method of crime in the act of aiding and abetting, even if there is no fact that the defendant told F of the specific perjury (the content of testimony) at the time of committing the act of aiding and abetting the commission of perjury, it does not hinder the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting false testimony.

(3) The above circumstances, as discussed by the court below, F's specific statement in F's court of original judgment / [the above 2]

C) In light of the F’s appearance of the F’s legal statement (as seen in Article 808, 1072, and 1073 of the trial record), the above determination by the lower court is justified and acceptable. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the portion of perjury related to 'the portion of perjury' related to 'the portion of perjury' that the F was known only to the person in charge of the E member's request for employment by the E member, is with merit, and all other arguments of misunderstanding of facts

C. Points of perjury

1) This part of the facts charged

At around 17:00 on July 13, 2016, the Defendant appeared to take an oath as a witness of the case involving obstruction of business 2016No. 6 of the above court in the court of Ansan Branch No. 301 of the Suwon District Court.

The Defendant testified to the trial division in the instant case to the effect that F made a solicitation for employment in P is a single time. The Defendant testified to the effect that F, etc. did not visit the E Assembly room in connection with the adjustment of Q business betweenG and T, and testified to the effect that “There was no fact that F, etc. did not coordinate the E schedule or arrange for an interview with the president during the audit process of the Board of Audit and Inspection,” and there was no reason to request F, who made a solicitation for employment in P to F, as if he was the director of the regional U.S. of the E Council’s office. The Defendant testified to the effect that the testimony was made.

However, on January 2, 2013 and June 2, 2013 of the same year, the Defendant requested F to employ P by telephone, etc., and confirmed whether or not it was possible. On January 22, 2013, G director S, F, etc., when visiting the E Council room to provide Q explanation, the Defendant made a false statement as if the E Council members were to be aware of the “P employment request”, and the F, etc., from the E Council member, who called the “P employment request.” On November 21, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection of G employment visa was under the audit at the Board of Audit and Inspection on G employment visa, after completing a meeting on November 21, 2014, the G president, at the time of receiving a request from G, arranged for an interview between M and E Council members, and the Defendant made a false statement, regardless of the member’s request for employment, to which part of the E Council members’ office members were the most false.

2) The Defendant’s statement of P’s employment solicitation to F is only one time. As to the part of the Defendant’s testimony

Examining the following circumstances that can be known based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant’s mentioning the F in relation to the recruitment of P around June 201, 2013 at the time of the aforementioned testimony cannot be deemed as arising from a mistake that does not recognize the solicitation as a separate solicitation from the employment solicitation on or around January 2013, 2013, or that the aforementioned testimony was made on or around June 2013. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

A) At the time of the examination of the Defendant in Suwon District Court, the Prosecutor asked the Defendant that “the witness told F to P, only once,” and the Defendant responded to “e.g., the Defendant.” The Prosecutor asked the Defendant that “I would have asked the Defendant that I would not make any further remarks,” and again asked the Defendant that “I would like to ask the Defendant that I would have been experienced by the Defendant that I would like to clearly call the P.m. (Article 6No. 3599 of the Evidence Records). In other words, the Prosecutor asked the Defendant that I would like to ask the Defendant that I would have expressed the P.m. number of times the Defendant would make the P.P. solicitation to clearly hear the Defendant’s answer, and again again asked the Defendant that I would clearly answer the above questions. In light of the Defendant’s content and circumstances at the time of the testimony, the Prosecutor asked the Defendant that “I would have made a wrong understanding of whether I would have made the P.m. solicitation to F.,” rather than asking whether I would have made a wrong understanding of the P.

It does not seem to have been the case.

B) P. From March 2013, 2013 BK 2. From around 2013 to around 2013, P. 2. From around 2013 to around 2013, P. 3 did not request the Defendant to employ a new employee at around 200 P. 6, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was not a new employee at the 20th 6th 2th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 2016.

3) As to the part of the defendant's testimony " there was no fact that F et al. visited the Ethical office in connection with the adjustment of Q business between G and T.

In full view of the circumstances as seen below, which can be seen from the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the trial court, it appears evident that S and F visited E Assembly members around January 22, 2013, and that the Defendant was aware of the above visit. Nevertheless, the Defendant testified that S and F visited E Council members around January 22, 2013, against his/her memory, and that there was no false testimony. This part of the Defendant’s statement was insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and that there was no other counter-proof (No. 8), and that there was no other evidence to support the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office (the part required by the Defendant’s counsel is nothing more than 6) to the effect that the Defendant’s statement was made at the time of his/her visit 1 to E Council members (the right to unilaterally interpret F’s right to assist him/her before and after the lapse of 7 hours). Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s statement is not acceptable from 201 to 2010 G Council members’s statement.

B) Actual G’s maximum pending issue appears to have been Q-related business coordination around 2013 (Article 407, 408, 438, and 439 of the Evidence Record No. 1, No. 408, 438, and 439 of the Evidence No. 1). It conforms to the empirical rule to ensure that S had endeavored to explain the issue of coordination of Q duties and to make a decision favorable to G by explaining the fact that S visited the E member’s office for Q explanation around January 22, 2013. Above all, it is difficult for S to find a motive to make a false statement about the fact that S visited the E member’s office for Q explanation. Therefore, it is recognized that S and F, etc. visited the E member office to explain Q around January 22, 2013).

C) Next, in the prosecutor’s investigation, S instructed F to arrange for an interview with the E Council member to visit the E Council member room for Q explanation. F stated to the effect that “The E Council member’s assistant or secretary is the E Council member’s assistant or the E Council member’s assistant or the F and the Defendant’s relative, etc., if F attempted to visit the E Council member room, it is in accord with the empirical rule to deem that the E Council member’s contact with the Defendant who has a pro rata among the members of the E Council member’s side would have taken place. In the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant also stated to the effect that “F has no pro rata relationship with other Seoul employees of the E Council member room other than the Defendant” (Evidence No. 52717 of the Evidence Record).

D) During the prosecutor’s investigation, F explained that “The Defendant was waiting for an interview with E members after consultation with the Defendant on January 2013, 2013,” “I would like to answer what outlines it would not be that the E member visited the E member’s room,” and “I would like to find it at the time of the Defendant’s interview because there was no secretary who was known at the time, and there was an interview with the Defendant’s intermediary.” In addition, the Defendant was waiting for an interview with the E member at the time of the consultation with the Defendant on January 2013, 2013, the Defendant stated that “I would am for an interview with the E member,” “I would am for an interview with the E member at the time of the consultation with the E member, and I would am for an interview with the E member at the time of the request of the E member at the time of the interview, I would like to refer “I am for an interview with the E member at the time of the request of the 6th National Assembly member at the time of S.

E) The E Assembly members’ office consists of two assistant officers, including the Defendant, two assistant officers, one secretary of Grade V, one secretary of Grade VI, one secretary of Grade VII, one secretary of Grade IX, one secretary of Grade IX, and two internships, and the fourth assistant officer is in charge of policy tasks (No. 5 of the evidence record No. 2715 of the above Council members’ meeting). It is not easily understandable that the Defendant, who is located in the position to coordinate the policy, was aware of the fact that he/she had known about whether he/she had met the request for the interview of the Council members with respect to the policy and whether he/she had met the request for the interview of the Council members with respect to the policy, or that he/she had known about the fact of the interview betweenG and T.

F) As seen earlier, the Defendant appears to have tried to reduce the scope and degree of involvement in the E member’s side in relation to the solicitation of P at the time of the instant case, and it appears that S and F did not arrange to visit the E member’s office around January 22, 2013, or stated that they did not know the fact of visit itself.

4) The Defendant did not arrange for an interview with the President of the G during the audit process by the Board of Audit and Inspection with the E member’s schedule or for an interview with the President of the G. The part testified.

A) The Defendant asserted in the court of the court below that “F only inform F of a certain degree of E members, and did not arrange for an interview with E members and G president for an interview with E members and G Ma.” The lower court rejected the foregoing assertion on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the Defendant was deemed to have testified with E members and M on November 21, 2014, and was found to have made a false testimony against his/her memory.

(1) First of all, according to the following circumstances, the fact that M completed a V meeting on November 21, 2014 and an audit is being conducted in relation to the employment of P is sufficiently recognized in the R Office to inform the fact that M is being audited.

(A) Clearly, it is apparent that M, the president of G, was present at the V meeting on November 21, 2014. However, M consistently stated in the prosecutor’s investigation and the lower court court’s court’s court that “I have a fact that E Council members were present in the R office to inform the fact that I had been conducting a Pemployment after completing a meeting on November 21, 2014” (Evidence No. 282, 6, 3570, 3571, and 752 of the record of evidence record).

(B) Even according to the Defendant’s statement, it is recognized that the Defendant, an assistant to the E member, made F a solicitation for employment of P (other than whether the E Council member directly participated in the solicitation for employment), and that the audit on the case of employment of P was in progress at the time. Therefore, it appears that the E Council member’s statement was persuasive to inform the fact that the audit is in progress in relation to the employment of P. Accordingly, it is difficult to find motive for M to make a false statement about the fact that M met with E Council member on November 21, 2014. Even if M’s prosecutorial investigation and statement in the court of original instance are somewhat different from the fact that M met with E Council member on November 21, 2014, it can be deemed that it was attributable to a naturally inaccurate memory that is naturally inaccurate depending on the passage of time. Thus, it is determined that the above statement of M is credibility.

(2) Next, F stated that the Defendant had arranged for the interview on November 21, 2014 by M and E, together with the Defendant, and that F had credibility in F’s statement taking into account the following circumstances. Considering that the Defendant was acting as a broker for E’s member and M on November 21, 2014, it is recognized that the Defendant acted as a broker for E’s member and M on November 2014.

(A) At the prosecutor’s investigation and court of the court below, M made a statement that “I would like to arrange for ERs upon the completion of V meetings from F to the R Office,” and that “I would like to arrange for ERs upon the termination of the V meetings” (Evidence No. 6, No. 3571 of the Evidence Record, No. 753 of the trial record).

(B) On November 21, 2014, at around 13:31, F sent to F text messages, “I, at the 3 o’clock, Z 19 p.m. and Z 1001 R office, the 10th floor of the same 10th floor of the 10th floor of the Z 1001, would be urgently arranged by the President so that the President may fill up R,” and “A secretary, and Z secretary assigned to each secretary, and made an urgent meeting.” (Evidence No. 1, 493 page of the evidence record).

(C) In light of F and Defendant’s pro rata relationship, if F attempted to arrange for the remaining Ma and E members, deeming that the contact would have been made to the Defendant who is pro rata among the members of E members would have been in accord with the empirical rule.

(D) As seen earlier, in order for M to inform the fact that M completed a meeting on November 21, 2014 and the audit is being conducted in relation to the recruitment of P, it is recognized that M was a member of E in the R room. It does not seem that M was a member without a certain adjustment rate with the E member’s side. (b) If we look at the aforementioned circumstances of the lower court and the following circumstances that can be known based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court and the trial court, the F would have set or arranged an interview with E and M president on November 21, 2014 through the Defendant, and M would sufficiently be deemed that M visited the R room, so it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant gave the aforementioned testimony contrary to his memory. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) From the prosecutor’s investigation, M consistently stated that “I have met E member in the office to inform the fact that I had been undergoing a P recruitment after completing a meeting on November 21, 2014,” and that “I has made a statement about E member in the office (No. 282, No. 6, No. 3570, No. 3571 of the evidence record, No. 752 of the trial record), at the court of original instance, “I have shown E’s response to E’s participation in the audit?” “I have shown that E’s participation in the audit?” “I have met within five minutes,” “I have been aware of his employee’s experience at the time when I had visited the R office, but I have been experienced at the time,” “I has made a statement about his personal affairs or personal affairs, etc. at the time of his interview,” and “I has made a detailed statement about E’s participation in the interview.”

(2) On November 21, 2014, F sent a text message as above to 0 around 13:31, 2014, and it seems that the subordinate did not make a false report to the superior on the day. Moreover, F arranged F to meet G president M and E, such as the foregoing text message. On the other hand, it is consistent with the empirical rule, deeming that E was an assistant officer of E’s Council members, and led to a friendly defendant.

(3) In the prosecutor's investigation, F stated that "I do not have any person who will help him to do so, even if I will do so," and that "I would have to do so in the E Assembly room because there is a problem by requesting the recruitment of P.", "I would have to do so in the E Council room," and "I would not have to contact the defendant and help the President and E Council members," and "I would have to see that I would have to see if I would have to do so in the R Council room on the 10th floor after the completion of the V Assembly," "I would have to see that I would have to see if I would have to do so", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I would have to see", "I will have to do so.54(Evidence evidence).

(4) On November 21, 2014, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that G president M did not know about the fact that he attended the Y meeting and that E Council members did not know about a certain schedule (Evidence No. 5, No. 2733, No. 2744 of the Evidence Records, No. 941 of the Public Trial Records) and as mentioned above, “I see schedule” as stated above. If the Defendant’s assertion, I am able to find that E Council members who were assistant officials could not have a certain schedule of his own interview at G, and it is difficult to obtain it. The Defendant stated that “I will know about it,” without any reasonable explanation, I would have “I see how I would know about it,” and that I would like to know about the Defendant’s promise to be ‘I me to know about how I would have finished the meeting? I would have no way to know about how I would have ‘I see how I will come to know about it.'

(5) The Defendant asserts that it is not reasonable to view that, at the examination and trial of the witness of Suwon District Court, Suwon Branch 2017 high-class 41 case F, the Defendant would have been this to this, on the ground that, at the examination and trial of the witness of Suwon District Court 2017 high-class 41 case, F would ask the counsel for the question that “I would not have her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.”

However, in light of the following: “F’s above statement was made on November 8, 2017 when three years have passed since M was met with E member; and in light of the foregoing F’s statement made by the prosecutor’s office and the content of the text message “A secretary, Z secretary, and Z secretary, and made an emergency meeting by leaving the E member of the E member of the E member of the E member of the E member of the E member of the E member of the E member of the E, and the content of the text message “I am on and after the testimony by the E member of the E”, it cannot be an obstacle to recognizing the fact that the Defendant arranged for the E member of the E member of the E.

(6) In addition, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s partial statement of M is inconsistent with the details of the BE’s witness examination (see subparagraph 9) in the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Dahap41, the Defendant asserted the credibility of the said statement; (b) the relationship with the said BE member (BE is a person who served from July 2014 to January 8, 2016 as a R secretary) or the circumstances leading up to the testimony and its testimony (the testimony was made on November 8, 2017 at the time when M was declared to have passed by the E member), etc., it is difficult to believe the BE’s statement itself as it is; and (c) it is inconsistent with the aforementioned BE’s statement because it is inconsistent with the intent or structure of the R laboratory, etc.

5) As to the part of the Defendant’s testimony as follows: “No one who has made a solicitation for employment of P to F (the prosecutor’s office) shall be arranged as if the person was the director of the regional office U of the E Council member’s regional office.”

A) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant did not erroneously understand whether the Defendant asked F to the effect that “F would only come into question 0 U.S. U.S.’s request for employment,” and that the Defendant was found to have made a false testimony against his/her memory, on the grounds that, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant did not erroneously understand the Defendant’s request for questioning of 0 counsel to the effect that “F would come into question only from 0 U.S.’s office.”

(1) In the process of the investigation related to the illegal employment of P, the Defendant also testified to the effect that “I would not have received a P solicitation from the Defendant, and that I would have received a P solicitation from the local office” (Evidence No. 653, 3554 pages). (2) At the time of the examination of the Defendant in the Suwon District Court, the Defendant’s defense counsel at the time of the examination of the Defendant in the Suwon Branch-Support 2016, J. 2016, 3608 of the evidence record changed the contents of questions several times to prevent the Defendant from being misunderstanding.” Although the Defendant asked F to the effect that “I would not have asked F that I would have requested that the Defendant would only request P from the U bureau to request P to make a P’s personnel solicitation,” the Defendant testified to the effect that “I would not have changed F to arrange as if I had only U U director of the E’s regional office (Evidence No. 607, 3608 of the evidence record).

B) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s aforementioned testimony is clear that the Defendant’s aforementioned testimony is a false testimony contrary to the Defendant’s memory, and furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s thoughts or opinions on the objective facts experienced by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been neglected, in light of the following circumstances, which are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

(1) After the testimony, the Defendant made a statement to the prosecutorial investigation on the instant case that “F requested that F be asked only in the region where the Seoul Office is not connected.” The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “F at the time of the testimony, 0 asked F to ask F to speak that the personnel solicitation was made only in the region office, and there was no such solicitation,” and that “If it was clearly asked F to arrange for employment only in the region where there was no receipt of PP solicitation and there was no request to arrange for employment only in the region, it would have responded so if it was clearly asked to do so” (No. 6, No. 353, 3554 of the evidence record No. 6, the evidence record No. 3554 of this case). However, the Defendant did not flickly reply to F’s delivery of the 0th office office, but the Defendant asked FF to arrange questions or questions to the effect that F would have been rejected by U.S.’s request to make testimony to the effect that “this testimony was not changed.”

(2) Meanwhile, the fact that the Defendant stated to F that “the fact that the U.S. Director first asked is not a fact that the U.S. Director first asked is 13).”

However, in light of the fact that the solicitation for employment of P was made through U and the Defendant, the context before and after the aforementioned testimony, and the F’s oral statement 14 in the lower court, etc., the Defendant asked F to arrange that F would have concealed the solicitation and made a solicitation for employment only by U.S., but it is sufficient to view that the Defendant respondeded to the purport that this fact was denied at the time of the testimony. This is sufficient to view that the Defendant did not directly conclude that F would be “the channel so doing” and “the channel” as U.S. director-general.

(3) At the trial, the Defendant asked F to notify the Defendant of the Defendant’s solicitation, but U first requested F to employ P, upon U’s request, the Defendant requested F to do so.

In addition, since U's personnel solicitation was requested by the defendant to F, it existed before the defendant's request. Accordingly, the defendant's request to notify F of the fact that he made an additional solicitation is different from the defendant's request to U U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's U's statement. Thus, the defendant's request to state that he made an additional solicitation should not constitute perjury even if there are some errors or contradictions in the statement because the defendant's own thoughts or opinions about the objective facts experienced by experience are vague. However, in light of the context before and after the testimony, the context of the testimony, the contents of the entire testimony, and the defendant's prosecutor's statement made after the above testimony, it is difficult to accept the above request as a matter of course.

(4) As to this part, the Defendant’s assertion at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation conducted on December 7, 2016 (No. 5. 2740 through 2744 of the evidence record), ② as at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation conducted on December 28, 2016 (F and the time of questioning, No. 653, 3554 of the evidence record), and part of the assertion at the lower court’s trial (16 of the evidence record at the time of questioning with the public prosecutor’s office conducted on December 28, 2016), ③ as well as the consistency of the arguments at the trial, and cannot be accepted easily because it is contrary to other evidence

6) Sub-determination

Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendant's argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to perjury.

D. Sub-committee

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to partial perjury, and all the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining perjury and perjury cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is partly reasonable, the judgment of the court below that rendered a single sentence by treating some perjury that is not guilty as above and the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act or the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be reversed in its entirety. Therefore, without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence. The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence acknowledged by this court are as follows, except for the dismissal or deletion of the relevant parts as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On the other hand, with respect to the employment of new employees in the latter part of the second half of 2013 of G (hereinafter referred to as “G”), M and N chief executive officer at the time filed an appeal on January 6, 2016 as the facts charged (Interference with Business Affairs), such as manipulating interview points, etc. in order to employ the P who had been employed in the Assembly room at the request of E Council room, the public prosecution was instituted on January 6, 2016. The Suwon Branch Branch Branch branch of the Suwon District Court recognized the conviction of M andO on May 12, 2017, and sentenced ten months of imprisonment (the above court 2016Gohap6). Although M filed an appeal on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing, on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, the public prosecutor, and the chief executive officer at the time, and the chief executive officer at the time, the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal on October 18, 2017 from 2015 to 2017.

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 152(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of a perjury teacher, the choice of imprisonment), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of perjury and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the crime of causing perjury heavier than the hostage)

Each of the crimes of this case on the grounds of sentencing is not very good for the crime to be committed by the defendant, even after the defendant's request for employment, even if the defendant has instigated the perjury to another person.

However, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment and has the time to lodge himself/herself while in custody.

In addition to the above unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. of this case, conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the results of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court shall be determined by taking into account the following factors:

Parts of innocence

1. The point of charge of perjury in the facts charged in the instant case

b) The reasons for appeal are as described in paragraph 2.(b)(1).

2. Determination

As seen in Section 2. B. 3-2 of the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant conspireds F to give false testimony by having the defendant F know that he was a person in charge of personnel management even though he reported the request by the E member of the E council to the S director, etc. at the time. Since the part of the charge is a case without proof of criminal facts, the defendant must be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but unless the defendant is found guilty of the rest of the perjury in the judgment in relation to the crime, the defendant shall not be acquitted separately from the disposition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge, judges and subordinate judges;

Judge Shin Jae-ok

Judge Choi Ho-hoon

1) Specifically F, in the lower court’s court’s trial, the following: “F was aware of her wrong memory, and her flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s statement.

Man't have consistently made a statement that the National Assembly member had no external pressure from the National Assembly member, Man't have his her friend, soar.

In addition, the defendant stated to the effect that he was a fluoring fluor that he would have been a fluoring fluoring, and that he was a fluoring fluoring.

In this case, the question is that there is a fluority that fluoring fluor not to do so, and the question is whether there is no fault of the principal in this case.

In order to assert, there have been a lot of logic that could have been sufficiently predicted, and that it would be better to prepare for it.

In addition, the issue is whether the F instructed the National Assembly member from the defendant to make an employment request or not.

would be a statement that, in a trial, a member would be asked about whether he or she directly talks with him or her, the circumstances in which he or she received a request for employment

B. A reply to the purport that “I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am am I am I am am I am am I am not connected to the E

G. In relation to the question of “I’n't know to the purport that he was not in charge of personnel affairs, I’t speak to the purport that he was not well aware,” the Defendant’s finite contribution

Ma, however, has been maintained that he had not been forced by the National Assembly member until then, and has given her fling to the people concerned.

The president respondeded to the purport that he had understood that he was fluencing with her fluencing, and that “I have heard this flucing, so doing.”

The witness respondeded to the question "I think I think I think I will have a flue about the two sides", and the witness gives this answer to the defendant.

The answer was made to the question, "e.g., whether there was a possibility of being disadvantaged or not," and "e.g., whether the witness was disadvantaged or not."

The answer was made to the question, “assumed.”

2) At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, F returned a cell phone to enter contact information after the cell phone was seized and deleted only the Defendant’s telephone call details; and

The facts were discovered to prosecution investigators (No. 554-1 to 3 pages of evidence record No. 1, No. 554-1).

(iii) No. 829,830 of the trial records

It is not written that the Defendant testified to the effect that the witness or M did not have visited the E Council room in the case of a P recruitment. It is true that the Defendant told the witness that he would not have her fluench until that time. I would like to say that the Defendant would not have a fluenchedly connected with the National Assembly member.In this case, it is true that the Defendant who is an assistant to E Council member made a P personnel solicitation to the effect that he would not cause unnecessary misunderstanding when he testified that he would not cause any damage to E Council member who is not related to this, and that he would not cause any unnecessary misunderstanding. I would like to say that the Defendant, an assistant to E Council member, not the purport of this letter, is the receipt of the above evidence, but because there is a case of the P Council member's personnel entrustment, so it would not be misunderstanding that the Defendant would directly have been a member of the media, so that he would not cause any unnecessary misunderstanding. I would like to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to do so.

4) 6, 7 pages of the witness examination record (Evidence 8) submitted by the defense counsel of the trial court

I would know if it is not clear even if he is asked about the testimony in the trial of "M, etc." or it is not clear even if he is present about it.It is also necessary to say that A will be able to do so in the process of consultation with the Council room. I would like to say that he will be able to do so in the process of consultation with the Council room. However, I would like to say that he would be able to say that he would be able to do so well, and that he will be able to say that he would be able to say.It is important to say that the question about the National Assembly member is well aware of it, and that the question about the National Assembly member is not well aware of it, and that he would be able to say that he would be flick about the question, and that he would not be able to answer that part of the National Assembly member's answer.

5) Meanwhile, in the prosecutor’s investigation, F does not speak on the grounds that he testified differently from the above facts, on the grounds that he testified in the prosecutor’s investigation.

this reply to the purport that it was first delivered only to 00 persons, and that it was later reported to S directors, and that it was delivered only to them.”

The purpose of the question is to question whether or not the E member's employment solicitation is delivered to G and not, and the “direct,” the question is whether or not the E member's employment solicitation.

only replyed to the purport that a person who is a personnel reporter has given up to 0 that person so testified (No. 1st, No. 572, 573 of the Evidence Records);

6) In the trial, the Defendant: (a) in the examination process of the witness in the Suwon District Court, FJ 2017 Gohap41 case, “ how to her day” and his memory is accurate.

It is the same that the memory is not accurate, but the BM secretary was also the same, and the office was left and served as a secretary, and any objection is made by any person.

It is stated that it is not clear whether the cause has been divided or not that it is not a clear memory. However, from the point of time of visit between S and F E Assembly members.

In the examination of a witness conducted around November 8, 2017, four years and ten months before the date of the visit, the F stated that the situation immediately after the visit is not accurately memoryd.

Rather, it is natural.

7) Since QN’s failure to establish an independent corporation or to secure an office in entry into a foreign country, the government’s case of a certain scale.

by leasing water from a foreign country to a low number of BN, and allowing the smooth exportation of goods in a foreign country.

project refers to a project that wants (Evidence No. 1, 293).

8) It cannot be deemed that S is highly related to M to the degree of false testimony for M even when S is subject to punishment for perjury. In particular, S is Q and pipes.

As a standing director of G in charge of the related business, there is no particular relation to P's solicitation for employment (Public Trial Records No. 734 of the trial record).

9) Meanwhile, while stating that, around January 1, 2013, and around February 22, 2013, F visited the E Council room to explain Q, M also visited at the time, and himself is a member.

The statement was made to the effect that it did not enter the original room. Moreover, in line with the S's statement, I tried to see the situation at the time.

However, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as rejecting the credibility of the S’s statement as seen earlier.

10) The Defendant reported the purpose of the interview if the Defendant arranged the interview, and if so, the E Council member did not play as such.

Although the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant had an interview and arranged a schedule, the auditor is in progress in relation to the employment of P, and before documents

In the process of punishment, there is also a possibility of not reporting the specific contents, such as that the manipulation of points by the practitioners was discovered in the audit.

Sector(M's inquiry and reply in the prosecutor's investigation of January 2, 2017, see, e.g., evidence No. 6, 3575, 3576 pages).

11) In relation to this, the Defendant expressed that F, the full number of members of E from the Defendant, expressed that he acted as an intermediary by exaggeration.

Although it is alleged to the effect that this is against F’s statement or text message.

12) F is not a counsel’s question immediately before such question, a question by the presiding judge stating that at the time the mediation process was made, and “F is not a report to the chief director,” and

0 At this time, the President, the Domin, the Domin, the Domin, the Domin, the President, and the National Assembly member's thickness to the author who is the H Director at that time.

In other words, it is necessary to send a series of letters such as 'Miso' and see that the situation is not serious and that the defendant will fluench with it.

“The statement was made.”

13) In this regard, the Defendant, in the Suwon District Court Annyang Branch 2016 High Court Decision 2016Gohap6, asked F to the U.S. Director for the channel to which he requested personnel solicitation.

The question of whether the request was made by the U.S. Director, “P personnel request by the U.S. Director,” and the next U.S. Director’s contact :

Because of the difference in the test, it was stated that it would not be said that the channel so would not be this sub-party.

J. “W....... to the Secretary of U.S., whether the channels are not written to F,” the question “W.........??????????????????’

D. The defendant testified that he did not have a finite term, and later, he was not a finite, but a finite, for the defendant's channel.

No one may be asked for the first time to answer questions referred to as the "Isday" that the Secretary-General speaks to the effect that Is as U.S.

Whether this fact is not a fact or not, it was stated that it was only fested (Evidence No. 6, No. 3607, 3608).

14) F is clearly set in the court of the court below to make the channel requested by the E Assembly room in connection with the investigation of the prosecution by the defendant to the regional chief of U.S.

upon request, and accordingly, when investigating a witness for the prosecution once, U.S., the secretary general of the local constituency office, made a statement that he/she received a request for employment.

In addition, only twice during the investigation of witnesses, the Defendant stated to the effect that he/she recognized the fact that he/she received a request for employment from the Defendant. (Public trial records)

Articles 800 through 802.

15) The defendant is asked by his counsel whether there is a fact that he asked the F to receive personnel recommendations from the U.S. Department.

Although the defendant asked that he or she should not give notice of his or her solicitation to the defendant passively, it is true that he or she actively requested F to do so.

Until the expression "I" was used as U.S. Director, and U.S. Director made a request for personnel solicitation to F prior to the defendant.

Inasmuch as the fact also shows, “F was not a member of the channel so called to do so, or F was arranged to do so.”

It is the purport that it cannot be viewed as a false testimony because it stated "no one exists."

16) Meanwhile, each defense counsel’s written opinion submitted immediately before the closing of argument in the lower court, dated May 8, 2017 and May 10, 2017, mentioned above in this part.

§ 842. Not more than 842, not more than 862 of the trial records;