(영문) 청주지방법원 2013. 8. 13. 선고 2013고단971 판결[위증·범인도피교사][미간행]
Defendant (Defendant of the Supreme Court’s judgment and Defendant 2 of the appellate trial judgment)
Kim Jong-soo (Court) (Court of Second Instance), and Court of Second Instance (Court of Second Instance)
[Judgment of the court below]
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. The occupation of aiding and abetting an offender;
On June 19, 2012, the Defendant was engaged in the business of providing game classified as a game and exchanging game products as a result of the game, and Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) who was a part of the Defendant’s society was also aware of the fact.
From July 2012 to December 2, 2012 of the same year, the Defendant demanded Nonindicted 1 to move the Defendant who committed the above crime to the destination desired by Nonindicted 1, who was employed by Nonindicted 1, to move the Defendant to the destination that he wants to use as a coo vehicle, demanded to seek a coophone, and Nonindicted 1 to help the Defendant escape in response to this demand.
Accordingly, the Defendant instigated Nonindicted Party 1 to escape the Defendant who committed a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment.
2. The point of perjury;
Around 14:00 on May 2, 2013, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the case against Nonindicted Party 1, etc. at the Cheongju District Court No. 421, the Cheongju District Court No. 421, which was located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, in order to take an oath, and testified to the effect that “ Nonindicted Party 1 was aware of the fact that he was investigated or was going to know at the time of the instant case’s trial (round July 2012, 201 through September 9, 2012).”
However, in fact, Nonindicted Party 1 was well aware of the fact that he was being investigated and the fact that he was receiving a criminal investigation to the extent that he transferred what he had made to an investigative agency about the operation of the illegal game room by the defendant, and the defendant was also aware that Nonindicted Party 1 was aware of this fact.
Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement against his memory as a witness who has taken an oath under the law.
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;
1. Copy of the protocol of examination of the suspect to the prosecution of the defendant three to six times;
1. A copy of each prosecutorial investigation protocol regarding Nonindicted 1
1. A copy of the evidence list (Evidence, etc.), a copy of indictment (No. 2013, 4757, 4786, and 5606), a copy of each protocol of trial (Evidence No. 55, 75, and 79), a copy of the protocol of examination of a witness (part of the third protocol of trial), a copy of the protocol of examination of a witness, a copy of the protocol of examination of a witness, a transcript of an oath (Defendant Witness), a transcript of a recording (Evidence No. 213), a copy of a criminal investigation report (Attachment of the written judgment of a defendant), a copy of the written judgment (Attachment of the written judgment of a defendant), a copy of the written judgment (Attachment of the written judgment of a non-indicted 2013),
1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;
Articles 152(1), 151(1), and 31(1) of the Criminal Act
1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;
Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act
In relation to Paragraph 2 of the judgment, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant had no intention to commit perjury at the time of the testimony of this case, but according to the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant's testimony at the time of the testimony of this case seems to have been false, and therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion cannot be accepted.
The Defendant’s each crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance, such as the fact that the Defendant was under investigation due to the suspected violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, which led Nonindicted Party 1 to escape from the Defendant while attending a criminal case, and making a false statement after having taken an oath against Nonindicted Party 1 as a witness in a criminal case, such as the escape of the offender, etc., and the nature of the crime is very serious. In addition to the favorable circumstance, the Defendant is against the Defendant, and the Defendant has no previous criminal record of the same kind of crime, the punishment as the order shall be determined in consideration of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, the background and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Kim Jae-hyung