Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Around 16:00 on March 26, 2013, the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness of the accused case, such as C and D, in the court of Law No. 317 of the Incheon District Court located in the Nam-gu Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, and the testimony, the Defendant responded to the question, “e.g., whether the witness knew of E which was in charge of cleaning during the nursing day while working for the witness,” “e.g., whether there was a fact that E had been in receipt of hospitalized treatment during the work,” “for example,” “the witness is hospitalized,” and “F patient is hospitalized,” respectively.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not know whether E, a cleaning day at the G hospital, was hospitalized in the actual G hospital and was hospitalized in the hospital, and there was no knowledge of the mother of the president of the G hospital, and there was no witness to be hospitalized in the hospital by F.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory as above and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to one copy of the protocol of examination of witness (part of the protocol of 11th trial), that of the High Court Decision 2012No453;

1. Relevant Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's statement in sentencing of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that the defendant's statement was not against memory. However, according to each of the above evidence in the judgment, the defendant is found to have been present as a witness and made a false statement contrary to memory although he did not have observed the fact that E or F had been hospitalized. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.

However, the fact that the defendant is the primary offender, the age, character and conduct, environment of the defendant, and this.