The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On June 3, 2014, the Defendant appeared in the court No. 2 of the Seoul Eastern District Court of Seoul, 404, as a witness, to take an oath against the above court's 2013 senior group 1344, 2014 senior group 527 (combined) C.

In the above court, the defendant testified that "I became aware at the end of August (2012)" of the prosecutor's "I knew at the end of August (2012) that C was pro-Nam," and continuously testified that "C has a sexual relationship with C after I became aware of the fact that it was pro-Nam."

However, on December 30, 2011, the Defendant was aware that C had a spouse from the first day to the day of the first day, and even though there was a sex relationship with C.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The fourth trial record, the protocol of witness examination A, the fifth trial record, the fifth trial record, the protocol of witness examination, the protocol of witness examination D, and the protocol of witness examination C, the fourth trial record, the fourth trial record, the second trial record, the second trial record, the second trial record, the second trial record, the second trial

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the recording on June 30, 2012, a record of the contents of the currency, and a reply to the request for appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation;

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

1. Penalty of a fine not exceeding 3,000,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendant, along with C, was indicted as a crime of adultery and was charged with a criminal trial, and the pleadings were separated during the trial process and presented evidence as a witness. At the time, the Defendant was examined as a witness in relation to the instant crime from the standpoint of denying the crime of adultery, which led to the instant crime. Furthermore, as long as the Constitutional Court excludes the crime of adultery through a decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant made a false statement on the charge of adultery.