beta
Text
Defendant
A A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On January 30, 2015, Defendant A appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the Defendant’s case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against D at the Seoul Central District Court, 510, a court of law around 16:00, and then, Defendant A handled that Defendant A actually received the amount of 10 million won as a witness of the Defendant’s defense counsel’s “The reason why the Defendant stated the amount of 20 million won in advance in the documents of advance payment is that he borrowed and paid the deposit to the business establishment. Therefore, it is not required that Defendant A borrow KRW 20 million.
I will respond to the question of "I".
The answer to "," and the witness does not have any consent to the explanation of the deposit and to take the form of borrowing the deposit.
"I knew that I had known the original fact to the question."
'The answer to the question is whether the same applies not only to the witness but also to other employees when working in the business place generally at the time.
"I have worked as a witness" for the question of "I have so completed."
"In this case, in addition to the advance payment of KRW 10,00,000,000 as business deposit, the presiding judge shall pay the amount of money to E in addition to the advance payment of KRW 10,000,000,00,000, and it is necessary to guide the money to obtain a loan from the savings bank instead of obtaining the amount of money and to prepare the loan documents under the recognition of such consideration.
The answer was made to the question of "A.I.D.".
However, in fact, the Defendant did not hear an explanation from D or E that the deposit will be paid by borrowing and replacing the deposit, and did not know the content thereof, and only prepared the loan documents according to D’s request to work in E, and did not know the fact that the document was used to obtain the loan from the savings bank.
Accordingly, the defendant makes a false statement against his memory.