beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the Defendants are above two years from the date of this judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Gwangju District Court on September 22, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2017.
1. On January 20, 2017, Defendant A’s perjury appears and testified to the judge who examines the instant case as a witness of the case of violation of the Act on the Greening of the Marriage Brokerage of Marriage to B in the Gwangju-dong District Court No. 102 of the Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong (No. 102, the foregoing Court No. 2016, No. 1582), and then testified to the judge who examines the instant case, the prosecutor’s “(E)” is pressured to directly operate BC on the first floor.
It is essential to respond to the prosecutor's question, "Is whether I will comply with the two questions," "Is finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finites finite
Therefore, it is necessary to establish a Baduk.
At that time, there was a two-time question.
The prosecutor answers "," and the prosecutor only lent the name of B and registered as a domestic marriage broker in the police.
B only borrowed the name, and no one may be the responsibility of the bank.
G. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.W.
“The Prosecutor’s reply,” and the Prosecutor’s “A de facto marriage relationship in which the Police was seeed as “A person who has made a statement to the witness” and “A person who has been in any relationship with B” for about 11 years.
G. L. G. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.W.
In response, we answer the question ", at that time, whether it is not a de facto marital relationship, and that it is unreasonable between the match while living on the first floor and the second floor."
The answer to “B” and “B is not a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, but a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant at the request of B, and there is no fact that the Defendant has been appointed as a Baduk, but was registered as a domestic marriage broker by lending B’s name.
“In response,” and the prosecutor’s “in the office of a witness in January 2015.”