위증
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) in light of the fact that there was an objective circumstance that D, at the time of the testimony of the defendant in this case, would have cancelled the provisional seizure of lease deposit claims against C, and the defendant testified to the effect that "the defendant would have known that provisional seizure was cancelled" was cancelled at the time of the second counsel, the defendant testified to the effect that "the defendant would have known that provisional seizure was cancelled." Thus, there was no intention that the defendant would have made a testimony contrary to his memory, and therefore, the judgment of the court below
2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On September 30, 201, at the court of Daejeon District Court around 15:00, the Defendant testified that, when the Plaintiff 201Gahap6223 of the said court was present and take an oath against the Defendant in the lawsuit claiming the return of the loan that the said court filed against the Defendant D, Defendant D was present as a witness of the Defendant and testified. Defendant D was paid KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff C on August 23, 2007, and issued a provisional seizure on the lease deposit, and Defendant E’s agent responded to the question as to whether the provisional seizure on the lease deposit was made. Defendant D would receive money from KRW 200 million, and even if there was any further need to receive money, the provisional seizure on the lease deposit was terminated. The Plaintiff’s agent’s “The security deposit is KRW 200,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000,000,000.”
However, in fact, Defendant D received KRW 200 million from Plaintiff C on August 23, 2007, and Defendant D did not terminate provisional seizure of claims against the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million against the office owned by the Plaintiff, etc.
Therefore, although the defendant did not know whether the provisional seizure against the claim was terminated, he made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant is a joint representative of G Co., Ltd. and a co-representative of D.