The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant was present as a witness of the Defendant’s violation of the Music Industry Promotion Act (No. 1528, Apr. 14, 2017) against the Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch, which was located in 451, as the rectification of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si. 1, 2017, and became aware of the facts charged.

The Defendant, “I am going against D’s husband, who is the Defendant’s husband, in a singing room,” followed by the Prosecutor E.

“I have become aware of this” in the question “?

The testimony shall be made, and the prosecutor shall continue to make a false statement to the question “I have confirmed that the witness is true at the time of the investigation by an investigative agency, and that the contents of the protocol are stated as the witness stated, and that there is no signature or seal.”

In that case, I did not know that the case would have so increased.

In that time, it is not true that it is not well memoryed and that it is not true that it is made at that time before one year.

The testimony was made and continued to be made by the prosecutor, “I have been fluently fluencing to no longer than a day,” and “I had been fluencing in a singing room and received it from E,” and there was an enemy who received a call from E.

“.....” for the question “?”

The testimony " shall be made," and the prosecutor's continuing to hold a door to singing practice even during the period of business suspension and conduct the business at his or her low risk to the question "Is what is the reason why the business will be carried out";

J. C’s husband D’s her husband, who I hear, play an excessive part.

Along with talks, “E was the same content as a director E by telephone communications,” and the testimony was made as “for example” to question whether this content is false or not.

However, on June 15, 2016, the Defendant was investigated by the police station at the branch of the game and the two team offices at the economy 2 team office as a witness for the original case and did not make a false statement. The Defendant was the same at the time of regulating the instant singing practice place.