Of the facts charged in the instant case, perjury is acquitted. Of the facts charged in the instant case

The acquittal portion

1. On August 17, 2017, the Defendant appealed from the Seoul Central District Court to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. and two years of suspended execution and continues to hold a trial at the appellate court, and operates the F Institute.

On February 11, 2014, around 14:00, the Changwon District Court No. 218 located in Changwon District Court No. 2013 and 1526 decided Feb. 11, 201 as a witness of the insult case against Defendant G at the above court No. 2013 and 1526 decided Feb. 11, 201.

On October 30, 2007, the defendant served as a lecturer by the defendant on October 30, 2007.

The facts of H are the clinic of the I. E. E. E. T. T., even though the Defendant did not graduate from the J University, the said I’s protocol was posted on the website of the said Institute as “J-dong graduate school” and was subject to an administrative disposition by falsely inserting the protocol, including the I’s academic background, on the website operated for the advertisement of a private teaching institute, from the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. At that time, the Defendant was notified by K, the operator of the said private teaching institute, of the administrative disposition as above.

In testimony as a witness of the above case, the defendant was subject to an administrative disposition against the witness in relation to the academic background of the witness.

Facts known also need to be

“No” for the newspaper “I”.

“Statement” and there was a dispute in connection with the controversy over forgery of “degree”

The controversy of the forgery of a degree has been in place at any time.

In 2007, by misrepresenting himself/herself with the JJ for the newspaper of "(b)", he/she was under investigation with his/her students and play by entering the civil petition at that time, and the suspicion was terminated.

The statement " was made and presented with a false meritorious service contrary to his/her memory."

2. Whether the testimony of the person making the judgment is false or not against memory is not a challenge to the simple composition of the testimony, but in the examination procedure in question.