Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 8, 2015, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in the court No. 2 of the Daegu District Court, which was located in the Daegu Suwon-dong, as a witness of the above court’s violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) against C and D, around 15:00.

During the examination of the above case, the Defendant testified that “The Victim E was able to do not seem to go beyond E” in the question of “I am after the victim’s fighting starts with the Defendants and there is no fact that the fighting has been finished.”

However, on June 29, 2014, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim E was living in the ground.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Copies of the third protocol of trial in the Daegu District Court 2014 High Court 2875 cases, and copies of each protocol of examination of witness (Evidence Nos. 32, 33, 34);

1. Partial entry of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Recording recording recording and reporting thereon;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel testified to the effect that the fact that they actually go beyond E is true, or that they do not go fast up with C and D, and that they testified as above by mistake.

However, according to the record of testimony, the Defendant first testified to the effect that he had no record of “E” at the first inquiry of the defense counsel, and concluded the testimony to the effect that he had the same testimony at the prosecutor’s inquiry to confirm that he had re-written the same testimony, but the defense counsel again testified to the effect that he would not be seen as having “E.”

In full view of the context before and after the testimony of the defendant, the purpose of the examination, and the circumstances surrounding the testimony, there is sufficient fact that the defendant made a false testimony contrary to his memory as stated in the judgment.