Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

From the Cheongju District Court case No. 51, 201, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraud case against Defendant C at the Cheongju District Court No. 2010, No. 1190, Jan. 20, 201, Cheongju District Court No. 62, Cheongju District Court No. 51, 201, and taken an oath against the Defendant, and during the trial of the above case, the Defendant “A witness shall not associate with the attorney’s question who is asked to be “..................”

“The statement was made”.

However, the fact, however, was that the defendant was present in the place where the trade contract was prepared, and that was paid the direct purchase price, and therefore the 100 million won fake trade contract is memory.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement and witness D's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the police against the accused (Articles 2 and 3);

1. Case number of 2016-5865 copies of the suspect examination protocol;

1. Copy of protocol of examination of witness in the Cheongju District Court;

1. Copy of an investigation report (a copy of an interview with a witness);

1. Application of the statutes governing a copy of apartment sale contract;

1. Article 152 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the defendant is that he was unable to memory the sales contract as stated at the time of the testimony as stated in the above testimony, or that the above testimony was not the purport of the above 100 million won contract, and that he stated that the situation at the time of preparation of the sales contract is not that he is not memory in detail.

In light of the following circumstances, the above evidence can be comprehensively admitted, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement contrary to his/her memory against his/her memory, so the above assertion is rejected.

(1) The defendant is subject to the first investigation of the police.