(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.6.28. 선고 2017고합197 판결

The Defendant is a person in charge of non-official duties related to private life of the President, such as: (a) from March 2013 to January 2015, (b) from January 2015 to August 2015, (c) from January 1, 2015 to August 2015, and (d) performing duties of the former President (hereinafter referred to as “President”) and obtaining from K (hereinafter referred to as “L prior to the name of the name; hereinafter referred to as “L”) with respect to the performance of duties of the former President and duties of the former President from September 2015 to September 2015.

2. Illegal tides in violation of the Medical Service Act;

M is called "N" by using the experience of mother members working as nursing assistant in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from around 1973 to around 1980, and even though not medical personnel, M is a person who has given accommodation to surrounding people. Although 0 is called "P", even though it is not a medical personnel, M is a person who establishes a separate office and operates a medical treatment for treatment purposes, such as relaxation of pain by taking advantage of pains, trees, shoulders, fingers, hand, etc.

The Defendant, who had been introduced through L, etc. prior to the presidential election, moved the above M andO into Q laz, not a medical institution, and caused them to perform non-licensed medical practice, such as injection and weather treatment, to the President.

Furthermore, even after the appointment of the president, M andO entered the office, and the Defendant agreed to enter the back of the vehicle without obtaining a license, such as injection, weather treatment, etc., to enter the office of the President, without having gone through the process of Cheongdae-dae (R) with the upper seat of the vehicle, to enter the office of the President, without having gone through the process of Cheongdae-dae-dae (R).

Thus, the defendant contacted M with the above M, and decided that M will receive a injection from the President in March 2013, and then that M will have the President, who is not a medical personnel, receive a injection in several ways from around 2013 to November 2013, without going through the due process of Cheong-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, where M will be on the back seat of the vehicle in front of the inner station located in the national border movement, and Ma will be on the back seat of the vehicle in question, and then M will put it on the President's bottom without going through the due process of Cheong-gu, Cheong-gu, and let M put it on the said method.

In addition, the Defendant, from March 2013 to August 2016, 2016, entered the above 0 knife to the lower knife of the said knife, without going through the process of the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

As a result, the defendant, who is not a medical person, assisted the defendant by entering the president's room without going through the regular access process of the Cheongdae, which is not a medical person.

3. Violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly;

On December 6, 2016, the Defendant adopted the Defendant as a witness of the Investigation Special Committee on the Investigation of State Affairs by Civilians, including L of the J Government, at the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Committee on Investigation of State Affairs”) to find out the suspicion of the suspicion of the State Council by civilians, including L of the J Government, at the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, and was requested to attend the National Special Committee on Investigation on the 14th of the same month, notwithstanding the fact that he/she was requested to attend the National Special Committee on Investigation, he/she was not present as a witness on the above date without justifiable grounds and was absent from the National Special Committee on Investigation on December 222, 2016 and January 9, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant was absent without justifiable reasons even after receiving a request from the national special assistance officer for three times.

4. A perjury;

At around 10:00 on January 12, 2017, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath at the Supreme Court of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, as a witness, on the fourth day for pleading of the impeachment case (the Constitutional Court Decision 2016Hunna1).

① The Defendant first tried to judge at L. 1 at L. 1 at L. 1 at L. 1 at L. 2 at L. 3 at L. 1 at L. 3 at L. 2, the Defendant responded that “I would like to memory at the end of 12 years without memory,” and that “I would like to deliver the amount to the claimant’s representative on the hand of “I would like to know that I would like to know. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would know that I would like to know that I would like to say, “I would like to say I would like to say I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to use I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to use I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know.

However, in fact, the Defendant had already known L prior to the presidential election because QS had seen L at the time of the presidential election in 2012, and there was no fact that L was paid for L or deceased producers with the presidential election. ③ The Defendant had been given instructions from T superior to T, etc. so that L could be exchanged in secret or exchanged closely with his/her secretary such as T or T, U, etc.

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

5. Violation of the Telecommunications Business Act;

No person may intermediate a third party's communications using telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator, or provide it for a third party's communications.

The defendant, in collusion with X, who operates a mobile phone agency, passed a resolution to provide it for the purpose of telecommunication with the President and L by opening the â€˜the next name phone so as to make the President and L to communicate closely with T, E, E, Y, Z, etc.

Accordingly, on January 8, 2016, the Defendant requested X to open ‘AB agency operated by X' in the ‘AB agency operated by X' in the Seocho-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On January 8, 2016, X, upon the Defendant’s request on January 8, 2016, the mother of AC, one mobile phone (AE) in the name of its partner, and one cell phone (AG) in the name of AF after obtaining consent from AD and obtaining consent from her wife AF.

around that time, the Defendant received ‘AD' and ‘AE' sent from X in the vicinity of the Gando basin as above, and provided the President with the namephone, who is the phone number 'AG' in the Cheongdae Station located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, to L, respectively.

In addition, from October 2013 to October 2016, the Defendant opened a total of 51 telephonephones in the name of another person, such as AH, AI, and AD, through X, and provided it to the President, L, etc. by means of the aforementioned method as shown in the attached list 1).

Accordingly, the Defendant provided telecommunications services provided by telecommunications business operators for another's communications in collusion with X and AH users.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of a witness, AJ, K, AL, M, AM,0,N, AO, AP, Q, R, and AS;

1. Statement by the prosecution against U, and statement by the prosecution against AT (Article 8);

1. AU written statement;

1. Three copies of a written request for attendance of the witness, three copies of a written request for attendance of the witness, or three copies of an order of accompanying;

1. Recording records;

1. An explanatory note and oath concerning the notification of the right to refuse to testify;

1. Details of text and text extracted from A mobile phone, investigation report (N stored in the U's mobile phone, records of the same kind, etc.), residents' inquiry into M, criminal record data, copies of summary order, L Cheong-C30D, details of restoration of mobile phone from the outside audience visit (SCH-C30D, SCH-Z160S), details of restoration of mobile phone from the outside audience visit (SM-B510S), A mobile phone call and text delivery details, A (AV AW, AI name AX, AX), andO telephone call details, A (AV name, AX), AM-related telephone call details, A-related telephone call details, A-related persons, A mobile phone rental type, SCH-type, SCH-Z16, 130S in the name of the person concerned and the person concerned in the A-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

The details of telephone call, AO ? Z, five copies of A currency, copies of design sche, copies of books (from January 4, 2015), 31 photographs, such as presidential diskettess, etc. taken by AO, photographs paid by L 306, copies of BB 306 lease contract, AP ? Z telephone storage (AP mobile phone storage), salaries received by NN in Cheongan, the details of salaries received by Cheongan, the details of transactions on the residents' bank account in the name of Cheongan (BC), the family relation certificate, family relation certificate, copies of A, and Z, A0-Z, the details of each communication data inquiry, the subscriber's inquiry, the subscriber's request for communication service subscription, and the details of A-X telephone calls.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 87(1)2 and 27(1) of the Medical Service Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including aiding and abetting unlicensed medical practice, M and 0 each medical practice), Article 12(1) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at each National Assembly (in the absence of a witness of the National Assembly, choice of imprisonment), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (in the absence of a witness of the National Assembly, comprehensive penalty), Article 97 subparag. 7 and the main sentence of Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in the absence of a witness of the National Assembly, comprehensive penalty)

1. Aid and mitigation;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Medical Service Act)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the heavier perjury)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Part concerning the aiding and abetting in violation of the Medical Service Act

A. Summary of the assertion

① The term “30-year medical treatment” is not a medical practice under the Medical Service Act, and ② even if the term “household medical treatment” is considered as a medical practice, the Defendant, according to the direction of the President, entered Ma andO, and did not know whether it is a medical practice, so it is only processed to the other party to the violation of the Medical Service Act. ③ In a situation where the principal offender of the violation of the Medical Service Act was not punished, the Defendant shall not be punished for the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Medical Service Act.

B. Determination

1) With respect to the assertion that the term "medical treatment" is not a medical practice, medical practice refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease caused by diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment based on medical expertise, as well as other act that may cause harm to public health and sanitation if performed by a medical person. As to whether the massage or breathesis constitutes a medical practice, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a medical practice, i.e., an act likely to cause harm to public health and sanitation if it leads to a treatment of a disease by causing considerable physical shock on the body, not just to a mere procedure for recovery from skin but to a certain act of treating a disease by causing considerable physical shock on the body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4542, Feb. 25, 200).

The witness 0 stated in this court that "the treatment" is "the treatment effect that enables customers to take advantage of their body parts, such as arms, legs, head, and item, such as 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', fld', so that we can alleviate the pain, and 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', 'weld', and 'weld', 'weld', and 'weld', 'weld', and 'weld'.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

2) As to the Defendant’s assertion that M&O did not recognize the fact that M&O et al. performed medical practice to the President.

A) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was in the position to fully recognize that the Defendant performed medical practice, such as injection and treatment, to the President in the Blue House, when checking the President’s health condition, etc. and the President’s body inconvenience.

① In the Defendant’s cell phone, multiple contact numbers, including M andO, were stored in the Defendant’s cell phone calls, and the Defendant sent text messages, telephone conversations, etc. with the above-related persons from time to time, and divided into discussions on the audience visit schedule and the President’s health condition. U, who served as the secretary of the D office, stated that “after the presidential appointment, N, P, and BF was transferred to the Defendant all of the duties of contact with N, P, etc. after the presidential appointment.” In particular, the witness M andO stated to the effect that “at all times, she was contacted by the Defendant and went to the President, who was driven by the Defendant, or who was driven by the Defendant outside of the B office,” at the time of the special examination.

At around September 2013, the AJ, a nurse working at the BH Center within the BH Center and the BI Domestic Ethy Center within the BI, stated in this Court that the AJ instructed that the AK president of the AK had a presidential blood and was under his/her supervision, and that the BJ was under his/her control, not the BHJ. In full view of the above statements, the Defendant appears to have been in full charge of the duties of checking the health status of the President and accessing M,O, etc. to enter the BH center and conducting incidental duties related to the health of the President, as well as the duties of accessing the BH.

② Since M/O et al. were referred to as n, P, etc., and their contact numbers were stored in the Defendant’s cell phone, they were stored in the above names. When they were to come back to the Cheongdaedae and left the Cheongdaedae, they came back again outside the Cheongdaedae, and they could have been sufficiently known to the President that they had performed an act related to the above names. The Defendant’s change was difficult to obtain in light of the empirical rule from the Defendant’s assertion that he did not know about whether Ma andO had done an act without permission. The Defendant himself did not know about whether Ma andO had done an act without permission (see the counsel’s written opinion on April 6, 2017, see Articles 4 and 5 pages). In the Defendant’s examination process, the Defendant knew that N’s “N and P, etc.”

③ The Defendant, who was a full-time employee of the President T, T, BK room, BL, BM, etc., who served as the President’s G secretary, 3:0 p, 1430 p, 200 BF, 3:00 p, 200 BF, 300 p, and 3:00 p, 300 p, 200 p, 300 p, 300 p, and c., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h.

④ The Defendant appears to have contacted Ma andO, etc. before the presidential was elected and taken place as Q straw of the president. According to the Defendant’s assertion, even though the Defendant was in charge of the presidential security service, he did not know that the said Ma andO did work for the President, and thus, he did not accept the Defendant’s assertion. As such, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion.

(5) In this court, the witness M stated in this court that "I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would have come to dynasium in the fourth place at the bottom of the President in the second half of 2013, and that I would like to dynasium in the first half of 2013. I would like to see that I would dynasium in the second half of 2013. I would like to dynasium in the second half of hynasium. I would like to dynasium in the second half of hynasium, and that I would like to dynasium in the second half of hynasium that M would already be a person who would have been in injection to the President

B) Therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

3) As to other allegations

A) The Defendant does not assist the President, who is the other party to the Medical Service Act, rather than assist the Defendant in the M/O, who is a violation of the Medical Service Act, and does not constitute a aiding and abetting Article 10

I argue that this is a matter of interest.

However, the act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender while knowing the fact that the principal offender is committing the crime. As such, the so-called aiding and abetting the principal offender’s commission and the principal offender’s commission of the principal offender’s commission of the act constitutes the elements of the crime must have the principal offender’s intent to commit the crime. However, since such intent is in-depth facts, if the principal offender denies it, it is bound to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the principal offender in light of the nature of the object, and there is no other way to reasonably determine the link of the fact by means of a close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule. In addition, the principal offender’s intent does not require the awareness of the details of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to have dolusence or predictability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005).

Examining the instant case in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as seen earlier, was able to easily assist the Defendant in the Defendant’s violation of the Medical Service Act by allowing M andO to communicate with the President while recognizing the fact that the Defendant did not grant a license to the President, and by guiding him/her to the place where the other party to the medical act was located. Moreover, considering that the place where the medical act was performed was conducted was a lux with the audience subject to strict control of the general public’s access, and that the Defendant aided and assisted the Defendant by facilitating his/her act of violation of the Medical Service Act.

Therefore, the defendant helps the President, who is the other party to the act of unlicensed medical practice, and at the same time, facilitate Ma andO, who is a principal offender to the act of unlicensed medical practice, so the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel

B) The Defendant asserts that, insofar as M&O did not receive punishment for a violation of the Medical Service Act, the Defendant cannot be punished as a crime of aiding and abetting.

In order to punish a crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Medical Service Act, a principal offender who committed a violation of the Medical Service Act is not required to be subject to criminal punishment. An aiding and abetting offender is sufficient if he/she directly or indirectly commits a crime that is realized by the principal offender and facilitates the commission of the crime. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the violation of the Medical Service Act, M and M, etc., which is the principal offender, can be sufficiently recognized. The Defendant, while knowing that M andO, etc., committed a criminal act as seen earlier, was aware that he/she had the intention to enter his/her office and facilitate their conduct of the crime.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

2. The perjury portion

A. Summary of the assertion

① The Defendant’s testimony about L at the time and place at which L was first met is due to an error of memory in what is the Defendant, and ② the Defendant’s testimony about the presidential payment is consistent with the Defendant’s memory and objective facts, and ③ the testimony that the Defendant was unaware of his use of his namephone, such as T and U, is based on the understanding of the Defendant’s agent’s personal information as a physical record of the reasons for the use of his namephone, such as T and U, etc., and cannot be seen as a false statement contrary to memory.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

When a witness’s testimony in perjury is based on a false statement contrary to memory, the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure should be identified as one of the whole instead of being biased to the simple part of the testimony (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1748, May 10, 191).

2) As to the time and place at which L was first delivered

A) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware that the president had already known L in Q Ba at the time of the presidential election, even though he was aware that L had been already known in Q Ba at the time of the presidential election, it was false to view that the Defendant appeared as a witness on the fourth day of pleading in the Constitutional Respit in the case of impeachment by the President (J) and testified that L was first passed in the time of the presidential election.

① On January 12, 2017, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness on the fourth day for pleading of the impeachment case (the Constitutional Court Decision 2016Hunna1, hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Constitutional Court Decision 2016Hunna1”) which was held in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea on January 12, 2017, and the Defendant testified that the Defendant was ‘business that was elected as the President by the President before J before and after the first time and location of L. In particular, at the time, the Constitutional Court asked the Defendant “I am for the first time at the time when L??” and the Defendant voluntarily testified that “I am for the first time at the time of the loss of his will.” However, the Defendant had already been aware of the facts that the former President had been elected before the election of the President, and that there was no objective testimony as above.”

② From around 2011, the Defendant: (a) had been in charge of the presidential affairs; (b) had access to Q Gaz; (c) had been in charge of the presidential affairs; (d) had been entering Q Gaz from the election campaign for the year 2012; (c) had been frequently seen as having been in line Q Gaz from the election campaign for the first time; (d) had been entering or leaving Q Gazzzz; (e) had been well aware of L and the Defendant had been well aware of L and Q Gaz from the beginning of the election for the first time; (e) had been in charge of the presidential affairs before the presidential election for the first time, it was difficult to view that the Defendant had been in charge of having been in charge of the presidential affairs before the presidential election for the first time; and (e) had been in charge of having been in charge of the presidential affairs for the first time before the presidential election for the first time before the presidential election for the first time, and (e) had been in charge of the Defendant’s first time before Q Doz from the election for the first time.

③ On October 10, 2016, the Defendant, at the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Special Investigation Headquarters, made a statement that the first L was a loss near Q Q (see, e.g., Supreme Court records No. 3878, 3879, 3889) even though he was subject to a witness investigation at the Seoul Central Prosecutor’s Special Investigation Headquarters, the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant had been aware prior to Q Q in the impeachment case (see, e.g., Supreme Court records No. 3878, 3879, 389). The Defendant presented a statement from the special prosecutor that the Defendant had been witnessed to Q QS, before the 2012 presidential election, the Defendant’s testimony was caused by mistake in the impeachment case at the above Constitutional Court’s above Constitutional Court. The fact that L was limited to Q S was reversed.

④ Examining the testimony of the above President’s impeachment case, the Defendant appears to have intentionally testified to the effect that “L was first met and last met at the place where the Defendant was lost in the course of performing his/her duties related to his/her will.” The Defendant appears to have made a statement in the direction of emphasizing that L was involved only in the President’s duties related to his/her own will. In full view of the aforementioned attitude and direction of the Defendant’s statement, the suspicion of the NIS by civilians, including L at the time, etc., and the situation, such as the President’s impeachment, etc., when taking account of the following factors: (a) there was no intentionally L in the Cheong Man or Qgu, etc., to give testimony to the maximum extent possible to protect the President; and (b) there is room to view that the Defendant made a false testimony as seen only in the place where the Defendant was lost.

B) Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

3) As to the presidential subscription money

A) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant appeared as a witness of the presidential impeachment case and testified that he received the award money from the President and delivered it to L from his intentional loss even though he did not have received the award money from the President and delivered it to L.

① The Defendant appeared as a witness for the impeachment case of the President and testified that “The President has given a document envelope containing money several times to L and delivered it to L in his loss.” However, on October 29, 2016, the Defendant asked the prosecutor’s question that “I want to know who would have paid the amount of money transferred from L” at the time when he was investigated as a witness at the Seoul Central Investigation Headquarters of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, “I would like to know who would have paid the amount of money transferred from L”, and asked the prosecutor’s question that “I would like to know who would have paid the amount of money when he was transferred to L or others.”

Furthermore, the defendant responded to the prosecutor's question "I do not have anything," "When the President instructs L to bring clothes, I would like to give L with the value of clothes. I would like to answer the prosecutor's question "................", and I asked L to the prosecutor's question "....., what is the money when the President instructs L to bring the clothes, I would like to have the thing called "......".

② The Defendant, as the testimony in the instant impeachment case, stated that the president has been assigned to L several times as the testimony in the instant impeachment case, and that there was a little amount of money. If the Defendant’s assertion is true, it would be in line with the empirical rule to deem that the Defendant reversed his statement in the direction of benefit to the President, which would cause a problem that the Defendant would have been able to receive the money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of money of the Republic of Korea.

③ In particular, witnessN, who was in charge of the presidential manufacture, stated in this Court that “The President did not pay the clothes value in cash even when L had been found together with L in the past, and L had paid the clothes value in cash whenever L had purchased his clothes.” The witness, NO, AO, Q couple, AP, etc., who was involved in the presidential manufacture, consistently stated in this Court that “No money was received from the President or the Defendant for the purpose of making himself or herself, and there was no money from L to receive money, and the source of money is the president or the Cheongbu.”

④ On January 16, 2017, L was present as a witness for the impeachment case of the above President and stated that L was “satisfe for whom the President has received the parliamentary expenses” (see, e.g., evidence 4-1 and 2). However, if L was to pay the President’s parliamentary expenses, the fact may act as disadvantageous to the President in the impeachment case of the President, and it cannot be ruled out that L made a false statement because it is likely that the principal’s offering of a bribe and the suspicion of bribery against the President may be recognized. On the same day, although L testified that most of the questions of the claimant’s representative were not memory, he/she received the parliamentary expenses from the President.

It is difficult to believe it as it is, because it makes a statement.

⑤ Rather, the statement of the witness directly responsible for the presidential production is more reliable than L’s statement. They consistently state that the Defendant and the President did not receive the suspected payment. They are contrary to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant received the suspected payment from the President over several times and gave L in the loss of intention.

B) Therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

4) As to the use of T or U’s namephones

A) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant made a false testimony to the effect that he was aware of the fact that the Defendant provided T, U, etc. with a namephone and used the said namephone, and that he was aware of the fact that he was using the said namephone, or that he was using the namephone purchased through any circumstance.

① The Defendant appeared as a witness in the instant presidential impeachment case and testified that “I would like to think that I would like to have purchased the namephones in the same way as I would like to do so? I would see my own security?” The Defendant’s testimony is that “I would like to know what I would you have written. I would have written. I would like to say. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to use the namephones purchased by T and U.S. or even if I used the namephones, it would be interpreted to the effect that I would not know the Defendant. However, the Defendant would not be able to use the namephones purchased by I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to use the namephones. I would not be able to use the namephones.

② At the time of the above testimony in the Constitutional Court, the Defendant argued that the claimant’s agent asked questions about the reasons for the use of T and U, and that he was not aware of the Defendant. However, if the Defendant’s argument is the same as the Defendant’s argument, I asked the claimant’s agent’s question about why the portion was written, but it is logical for the Defendant to answer “I would know what kind of problem it was written.”

(3) Even if the defendant's family member made an error in his/her intention to ask questions as alleged by the defendant and made the above answer, it is reasonable to view that the above car namephone is also a false testimony, considering that only the participants of the State Council case by civilians, such as L et al. and the persons related to L et al. "BE" used the above car namephone, as there are no special reasons to use the car namephone in order to prevent the risk of Do and wiretapping, since 2Gphones are provided by the mobile phone for business in order to prevent the risk of Do and wiretapping, there is no special reason to use the car namephone in order to prevent the risk of Do and wiretapping. The defendant actively opened the above car namephone and provided it to the above person with the role of using the car namephone in order to conceal what is, and even if it appears difficult to know what is the reason to use the car namephone, it is also reasonable to view it as a false testimony.

B) Therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria (only taking into account the lowest limit of the sentencing criteria applied to perjury in the judgment, since the sentencing criteria are not set for a violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly and for a violation of the Telecommunications Business Act, and the sentencing criteria are not applied to the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Medical Service Act).

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Perjury) Basic Area ( Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months)

【Special Convicted Person】

[No person who is a general person]

3. Pronouncement of sentence: The defendant appears to have been in difficult position to refuse a superior's instructions such as the President related to each of the crimes in this case under the structure of one year and ten-year president. The defendant has committed his best efforts in accordance with good faith to the President in the direction of benefitting the President; the defendant's behavior has recognized and is against depth as to the fact that social confusion has occurred due to his behavior; and the defendant has no past record except for those sentenced to a fine due to drinking. Even though the defendant's loyalty should lead to the people's wrong deviation from the President and its surrounding people, it would result in reliance on the defendant's request for appearance to the President to attend the National Assembly, and thus, it would be relatively more favorable for the defendant to make sure that it would cause serious harm to the national security and health of the defendant, such as N, P, etc. to attend the National Assembly and to make sure that it would be more favorable for the defendant to attend the National Assembly without any justifiable reason.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, the circumstances and results of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered as ordered.

Judges

The senior judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Shin Sung-sung

Judges Kim Gin-ho

Note tin

1) On May 19, 2017, No. 45 in the list of crimes in the annexed list of annexed crimes was revoked by the special prosecutor on the fifth day of May 19, 2017, and this court rendered a decision to dismiss the public prosecution on this portion on the sixth day of May 31, 2017, and this part is excluded from the crime.

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.