beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 26, 2015, at around 17:00, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in the Daejeon District Court 2014, which was filed by the Daejeon District Court 212, the Hongsung-gun, Hong-gun, Hongsung District Court 38, as a witness of the claim for construction cost under Gohap 663, and the Defendant’s agent stated that “the execution of a witness by doing so is required for the approval of flood control,” and the agent stated that “the execution of a witness by mixing waterproof and sand, etc.,” and the agent performed the rooftop waterproof construction work by mixing it with waterproof agents, sand, etc.
“In the event of towing, liquid waterproofing,” we have only cement and cover the above questions by mixing with sand and cement.
The testimony was made to the effect that a liquid waterproof construction was carried out on the rooftop, such as the statement "."
However, in fact, the Defendant did not perform liquid waterproof construction works on the above rooftop when he subcontracted the above rooftop waterproof and unclaimed construction from Company B, which is a contractor of the construction of a new building in D's building penta-si, Chungcheongnam-si.
Accordingly, the defendant gave false testimony contrary to his memory and raised perjury.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the witness C;
1. A construction statement, a protocol of examination of witnesses (A) and an appraisal statement;
1. Contracts, etc. for construction works;
1. Each judgment of the first and second instances of civil affairs [the defendant himself was engaged in water-proof construction on the rooftop rail and rooftop combined, and the remainder was not waterproof construction in consultation with E, which is the victim's agent, so the victim's answer was given to the waterproof construction of the above liquid water, without specifying any part of the rooftop (the floor or railing section) and asked questions and answers to the effect that the defendant was carrying out water-proof construction on the rooftop floor.
Therefore, the defendant asserts that he was not guilty because he did not give false testimony contrary to memory.
However, this Court has legally adopted it.