A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 13, 2014, the Defendant appeared to take an oath as a witness of the Cheongju District Court No. 2, Cheongju District Court No. 51, Cheongju District Court No. 2, which was 51, Cheongcheon-ro, Dalcheon-si, and the foregoing court’s obstruction of performance of official duties against C, etc.

The defendant testified as follows: (1) The defendant testified that the defendant's defense counsel "I see the question whether the location of the defendant's cell phone was located towards the swimming side"; and (2) the counsel testified as follows: (3) the counsel testified as follows: "I see that the police's body was not at a location to contact the mobile phone," "I see that I would not see it."; and (3) the counsel's counsel testified as follows: "I see whether the defendant was "I see that the police officer who was on both sides of the building, not toward the police officer who was on both sides of the building, but toward the swimming side of the building."

In fact, at around 21:50 on September 6, 2014, C was not carrying the cell phone used by the police officer, who was called up after receiving 112 report on the 110th of the “E” restaurant in front of the restaurant in Docheon-si, F, etc., but carried the cell phone on his hand to the swimming side or the restaurant.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness F, G, H, and I testimony [the witness F, who is a police officer, has consistently testified as to the fact that C had a police officer, who is not a swimming of the mobile phone, and I also testified as to the floor of the mobile phone, but the witness I, who is a witness, has left the floor of the police officer. However, the witness I testified to the effect that C had a police officer’s right to the floor, and consistent with it (the defendant asserts that C had a cellular phone, while the witness I claimed that C had a cellular phone, he had a cell phone in the direction of delivery and delivery, and that C had a cell phone in the direction of parallel.