A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 14, 2017, around 16:20, the Defendant appeared at the Seoul Central District Court 408, the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court 408, which was located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, as a witness, and tried as a witness for the fraud case against Defendant D, the above court 2016 High Court 9087 High Court 9087

In the above court, the defendant agreed in the above prosecutor’s “it is possible for the defendant to fill two parallel apartmentss with the defendant in the year 2007”

2.3

E or F does not specify the E or F

The testimony was made to the question, “e.g. E. E.”.

However, the defendant did not agree with the above D that "it is possible for the above 30th apartment unit."

In addition, the defendant's "the witness was the executor of redevelopment project that is not known to the redevelopment project in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and how the trial will proceed."

The question of “I”, “I have been in charge of the PM to the Corporation, the Finance, and the sale in lots,” and “I have been in charge of the Project.”

“The testimony was made”.

However, in fact, the defendant did not receive only a business from the K which is the executor of the above redevelopment project, and did not have been assigned a PM business to exercise overall control over the time construction of the redevelopment project, finance, sale in lots, etc.

The defendant continues to do so with the prosecutor's "I Schological test" with the apartment to be sold in lots.

Dol Dol Dol

‘To answer the question’, “To answer the question of the national housing, the memory one who talks about to give the national housing.”

“The testimony was made”.

However, there was no fact that the defendant provided I with the following talks that "I will do so with the apartment to be sold in lots."

In addition, the presiding judge's "A witness was able to receive from September 2009 to February 2010 by the defendant."

The question “150,000 shall be received.”

“At the time of the public prosecutor’s testimony,” and “the witness of the public prosecutor’s “at the time of the public prosecutor’s receipt of I money.”

“......”