beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, “2017 Highest 180,” who was not a public prosecution in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, worked as a beneficiary of 'E' operated by D from the person under de facto marital relationship to June 2012, and C did not receive retirement allowances, etc. from D, which caused C to file a lawsuit claiming retirement allowances, allowances, etc. (the confirmation against Plaintiff C lost on January 23, 2014; hereinafter “relevant retirement allowances lawsuit”), and thereafter there was a continuous civil or criminal dispute between D and D.
On September 13, 2016, the Defendant appeared as a witness in this criminal case (hereinafter “related criminal case”), such as violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. (Joint Intimidation) against the Defendant, at the Seocho Police Station located in Doi-ri-ri 93, Young-si, Sii-si, Sii-si, Young-si, Sucheon District Court of Chuncheon on July 20, 2016, the Defendant appeared as a witness in the open criminal court of this case (hereinafter “instant criminal case”), and told him of such remarks from F even though the Defendant had not threatened F.
A written complaint stating the purport that the contract between D and C was a contract for work, and thereby making a false statement contrary to memory, is presented. Around September 23, 2016, the police officer present at the early police station in the above police station and made a supplementary statement to the above purport.
However, the Defendant was aware that, on January 13, 2015 to April 14, 2015, the Defendant threatened F with F by referring to false career, kinship, etc., demanding the reversal of money or existing statements, and C was well aware that D’s statement was not false, such as that it was decided against D on the ground that the contract with D was a labor contract in the instant retirement allowance lawsuit filed against D on the premise that the said contract was a labor contract, and that D’s statement was not a false statement, as finalized by the Supreme Court, on January 23, 2014.
Accordingly, the defendant is a public official for the purpose of having D receive criminal punishment.