beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 22, 2014, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Defendant’s intimidation case No. 20178 of the said court in the Daegu District Court, Kim Jong-dong, 1224, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, 1224, and took an oath.
The Defendant testified in the above court to the effect that “C operates a child-care center on behalf of a child who is not for the purpose of punishment, but for the benefit of a child-care center,” and that “I do not have to say that I would not take any harm to the child-care center.”
However, on March 31, 2013, at the fifth floor of the F Hospital located in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, the Defendant: (a) heard that C’s “n't engage in a child care center for any child who is not for the purpose of punishing money but for any other child; and (b) heard from the side that C’s “n't engage in a child care center for any other child,” and told C as “n't engage in a child care center for any other child.”
Ultimately, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;
1. Legal statement of the witness H;
1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;
1. Investigative reports (the commencement of an investigation and reporting attached to records), copies of the protocol of examination of a witness (A), copies of the protocol of examination of a witness, copies of the protocol of examination of a witness (D), copies of the protocol of statement of a police officer with regard to D
1. As a result of the investigation, the defendant and his defense counsel only testified as a witness to his memory, and there is no false fact or no false fact contrary to his memory, and denies the facts charged in this case.
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence mentioned above, namely, D's statements that correspond to the facts charged, are consistent from the investigation agency to this court, and H's witness.