The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Around 16:00 on April 8, 2015, the Defendant was present as a witness in the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2, Seoul Eastern District Court No. 404, the Seoul Eastern District Court held that the Defendant was present as a witness in the above court No. 2014 order 3264 and 3699 order C.

When the defendant gives testimony after taking an oath as above, the prosecutor's "I do not ask the prosecutor's "I do not have the name of selling the lostphone purchased from the taxi engineer."

The prosecutor stated that the money is not money that the witness has sold or received from the defendant a lost phone.

The question of “A third party is suitable for having been sold and received a phone to the defendant,” and the phone was of a strongest expiration.

“The statement was made”.

In addition, if the prosecutor collected the smartphones sold by the witness to the defendant, whether the smartphones sold by the witness were returned to the cell phone store.

No. 106,000,000,000

“The normal telephonephones collected directly from the cell phone store” are referred to as “.”

“The answer was made.”

However, in fact, the defendant purchased the lost mobile phone which passengers get on the street in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, from the taxi engineer, and sold it to C with good knowledge of the fact that the aforementioned mobile phone is lost.

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

However, the defendant's testimony as above stated that it was against the defendant's memory, first of all, the defendant's statement that "the defendant purchased the mobile phone lost by the passengers from the taxi article in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and sold it to C with well-known knowledge of the fact that the aforementioned mobile phone was lost, after he purchased it from the taxi article." second, the defendant's testimony was prepared by the judicial police assistant.