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

1. On October 15, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant appeared at the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, and took an oath as a witness of the case of occupational embezzlement, etc. in the above court 2012Kadan284, and then, the Defendant testified that the counsel’s “at the coffee shop in Seoul Do (at the coffee shop in Seoul Do, November 19, 2010) would not be able to put into a difficult situation when he entrusts D with D’s nominal representative of Singapore and Chinese legal entity, such as C, so it would be better for D to cancel Singapore and Chinese legal entity. However, the witness (Defendant) testified that “I did not have any tension” with the interrogation that C was strongly cancelled at the time of his hearing.

However, at the time, the defendant, at the time, obtained the 10 billion won by defrauding the 10 billion won of the E president to flee overseas.

Currently, correspondence is currently being used for E.

In the future, I will see whether E and currency or Mana, F, will not be able to impose on the principle of tax base.

In respect of E, the NIS shall also examine E in the course of its investigation.

(h) cancel corporations established in Singapore and China.

If the horses are heard, they will be punished as E and accomplices.

It was well aware of the fact of coercion by force.

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

2. Determination

A. When a witness’s testimony in perjury is based on a false statement contrary to his memory in the relevant legal doctrine, the whole of the testimony during the relevant interrogation procedure shall not be distorted to the simple composition of the testimony (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1748, May 10, 191). The entire purport of the testimony is consistent with objective facts, and is inconsistent with his/her memory, if it is not an notarial act contrary to his/her memory.

Even if perjury is not established, perjury cannot be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do105, Sept. 14, 1982).