Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 12:50 on February 2, 2015, Defendant A’s violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving a sound driving) driven a Dworket car about 1.5 kilometers under the influence of alcohol by about 0.232% under the influence of alcohol from the front Do of the billiard located in the central 2-71 of Pyeongtaek-si in Pyeongtaek-si to the front 31-1, in the same city of the same city, from the Do to the flown-do road.

2. Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint criminal conduct (on February 2, 2015, Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint criminal conduct (on the part of Defendant A and Defendant B’s criminal conduct) were controlled by drinking driving in the F District located in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, and Defendant B, and Defendant B called “the statement as if Defendant C had driven a vehicle instead of contact with Defendant C,” and Defendant B told Defendant B to make a false statement by immediately communicating to C and requesting the same purport.

C On February 2, 2015, at around 14:00 on the same day, driving D vehicles from 12:0 to 10:00 on February 2, 2015 by the Defendants’ teachers in the F Zone.

On February 5, 2015, at around 15:51 on February 5, 2015, Pyeongtaek Police Station’s false statement was made to the effect that he/she was investigated as a witness at the office of Pyeongtaek-si Police Station’s Guard and Transport Investigation Team’s office located in Pyeongtaek-dong 619-2, Pyeongtaek-dong, and made a false statement to the same effect.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce C to escape a person who commits a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment.

3. At around 14:00 on February 2, 2015, Defendant C prepared a written statement stating the aforementioned false content according to the above teachers A and B, even though the Defendant had not driven the Defendant at the above FF Zone, and made a false statement to the police officer in charge.

As a result, the defendant, who committed a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment, had the above A escape.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to Defendant A of the report on circumstantial statements made to Defendant A

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense;