(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.05.29 2014노1630



The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was to question whether the money at issue in civil procedure was collected or not, and the Defendant thought that “the provider is not a recipient of the money which was returned later,” and that detailed background about the work at issue before five years prior to his/her answer was also ra, and thus, he/she cannot be deemed to have committed perjury by means of an notarial act contrary to memory.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the court below's witness D, G, and J's legal statement, it can be acknowledged that not only the fact that the defendant received money from the defendant in addition to the original judgment, but also the fact that the defendant was involved in the collection of money, such as getting a private taxi driving and going to a bar office with D and an attorney office, but also the fact that the residents, including the defendant, did not completely leave the materials to recognize the right to return the attorney's fees.

Therefore, although the defendant was well aware of the above questions in civil procedure, he can be determined as having given the answer to the other party's confirmation and questioning about the core points.

On the other hand, when considering the progress of the examination of witness, the defendant's memory was threatened.

It cannot be said that there was an error in the defendant's nature of the money raised at the attorney's fees, or that there was an error in such a statement.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as having committed perjury as a means different from his memory is justifiable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.