209Nodu2632 (a) A. Bacing teachers

(b) A perjury;

A (49 years old, South)

Suspension Decree

August 11, 2009

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the accused to provide community service for 120 hours.

Criminal facts

피고인은 부산 북구 금곡동에 있는 ◇ 건물 지하 1층에서 식당을 운영하던 중 식당의 일부를 C1에게 임대하여 주었고, C1은 그곳에서 ◆ 웨딩홀을 운영하였다.

그러나 임대차 계약기간이 만료함에 따라 임대목적물의 양도와 관련하여 C1과 다툼이 생겼고, 피고인은 아들인 C2와 C3, 지인인 C4와 공모하여, 2007. 6. 8.경, 2007. 6. 10.경, 2007.6.17.경 3차례에 걸쳐 ◆ 웨딩홀의 출입문 앞에 의자 4개를 놓고 앉아 CI로 하여금 ◆ 웨딩홀에 들어갈 수 없도록 막음으로써 C1의 웨딩홀 운영에 관한 업무를 방해하였다.

As a result, around December 21, 2007, the Defendant was charged with the crime of interference with business with Busan District Court. After requesting a formal trial, the Defendant had C2 et al. give false testimony as if the Defendant did not appear at the scene at the time of interference with business, and had the Defendant give false testimony to be exempted from criminal punishment.

1. A perjury;

On April 208, 2008, the Defendant told C2 of C2 of the Defendant’s testimony to the effect that “the captain was at the office of KK attorney-at-law, a state appointed defense counsel, at the time of Busan’s annual movement, “the captain dealt with all substantially all kinds of work with respect to interference with business, and was not on the same spot and there was no scar.”

결국 C2는 피고인의 교사에 따라 2008. 7. 17.경 부산지방법원 351호 법정에서, 피고인에 대한 2008고정1433호 업무방해 피고사건의 증인으로 출석하여 선서한 다음 증언함에 있어, 검사의 “증인은 C3, C4, 피고인과 함께 2007. 6. 8.경, 2007. 6. 10.경, 2007.6.17.경 C1이 ◆ 웨딩홀에 들어가지 못하도록 한 사실이 있지요?"라는 질문에 “예”라고 대답한 다음 검사의 “그 때 피고인은 없었다는 것인가요?”라는 질문에 “예”라고 대답하여 위증을 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant instigated C2 to make a false statement contrary to his memory, thereby instigating the perjury.

2. Around December 22, 2008, when the perjury c2 was prosecuted for perjury with the Busan District Court due to the above perjury, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the perjury case against C2 with a view to getting the son2, who is an son, to escape criminal punishment, and had the son2, take a false testimony.

On April 9, 2009, at the Busan District Court No. 253, the Defendant testified to the effect that “Defendant C2, C3, and C4 are not present at the site of the witness at the time when he was present at the Busan District Court No. 253, and testified to the effect that “I do not do so,” the Defendant testified to the effect that “I do not have a witness at the time when the witness was present at the scene,” with respect to criminal facts that Defendant C2, C3, and C4 did not enter Swedo over three times on June 8, 2007, around June 10, 2007, and around June 17, 2007.”

However, the facts were not only at the site of the Defendant as described in Paragraph 1., but also at the location of C2, C3, and C4, which interfered with C1’s crowdfunding business. Accordingly, the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and issued perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A copy of each protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the C2 or C4;

1. A copy of the protocol concerning suspect examination of the police; and

1. Statement of each prosecutorial statement concerning C2;

1. A copy of the police statement concerning C1;

1. A copy of indictment and a copy of each protocol of trial (including a copy of each protocol of examination of a witness);

1. A copy of the complaint, on-site photograph;

1. Each investigation report (a copy of the progress of the case, a copy of the judgment, etc.);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 152(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 153 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (In consideration of the fact that the person's mistake is divided and reflected, and that there is no previous or previous fact)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Judges Han Han-Gyeong