Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant appeared at the court of Suwon District Court 405, Jun. 12, 2015, which was located in the way of No. 212, 2015, around 16:00, the Defendant appeared in the witness of the Defendant’s case, and took an oath, such as interfering with the performance of a deceptive scheme against Defendant C, the above court’s order 2014 senior 1885 senior 201 senior 185 senior 1885 senior 200 senior 2 senior 2nd 195 senior 2nd 19

The Defendant, “I, as a example, memory to the prosecutor’s question “I do not directly give 10 points out of 10 points to the two (mark) items.”

A statement was made to the effect that the two direct marking marks of D were modified to the full marks of 10 points each.

However, the facts did not, by C's instruction, change the scores of E on D, and the defendant did not directly change the grading scores on D in 10 out of 10.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. A copy of the protocol of prosecutorial statement against the defendant, and a copy of the statement to the defendant;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a recording book (No. 25) at a net time;

1. Article 152 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order was that the defendant and his defense counsel had no criminal intent of perjury because they testified in accordance with memory at the time.

The argument is asserted.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the Defendant was investigated by the Board of Audit and Inspection on June 8, 2014, and was stated in the Defendant’s marking table 10 points on D, but it was stated that it was not equivalent to it, but changed. ② After being investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office on October 22, 2014, the Defendant as to D.