Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On October 2, 2013, Defendant A appeared as a witness of the case of occupational breach of trust in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court No. 508, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and 2013 High Court No. 368, and testified.

On April 12, 2011, the Defendant held a board of directors on April 12, 201 and resolved to pay bonus to full-time officers and paid employees.

However, on April 12, 201, the statement was made to the effect that “The fact was not held by the board of directors.” As a result, the Defendant, who took an oath under the law, made a false statement against memory. B. Defendant B, around October 2, 2013, was present at the court of Seoul Central District Court No. 508, which was located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, as a witness for occupational breach of trust, and was given an oath and testimony. The Defendant, before the presiding judge, stated that “The board of directors was held on April 12, 201, and passed a resolution on the payment of bonus for union full-time officers and paid-time employees.”

However, the facts were not held by the board of directors on April 12, 2011.

Accordingly, the defendant, even after being sworn by law, made a false statement against his memory.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the board of directors meeting held on April 12, 201 at issue in the facts charged (hereinafter “board of Directors”) was actually held, and the Defendants were actually present at the above meeting, and accordingly, the Defendants stated the truth in the court of occupational breach of trust in the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Ma368, supra. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the facts charged in the instant case should not be acquitted, which are premised on the premise that the board of directors of the instant case was not actually held.

B. (1) The burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the recognition of guilt is the judge's reasonable doubt.