위증
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant did not own the shares of D in its name, and thus the Defendant testified to the effect that he did not own 30 percent shares in the above company does not constitute perjury.
(2) The person who purchased the instant real estate in the auction procedure is not the defendant but E, and the defendant was prior to the decision of permission for sale at the time of receiving the waiver of lien and the letter of explanation of the name of the site from the creditors, and thus the successful bidder was not decided. Therefore, the defendant's testimony to the effect that the actual successful bidder of the instant real estate is E, and that the defendant's receipt of the waiver of lien and the letter of explanation of the name of the site
B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion as above, the Defendant testified to the effect that the Defendant did not hold shares of D in the name of F, one’s wife, but did not hold shares in the said company.
Furthermore, according to the above testimony of the defendant as to whether or not the above testimony of the defendant is a witness, the legal representative asked the defendant "I do not have a witness's share" and it is acknowledged that the defendant merely asked the defendant "I do not have a witness's share" as "I do not have any question and answer as to the relation with the defendant." It is not a distinction between the defendant's inquiry and the actual ownership, such as the above facts acknowledged, but merely because it is nothing more than that of whether the defendant has a share of D, there is a share in the name of the defendant.