beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.29 2017노2556

위증

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) was unable to witness the scene at the time C was at the time of July 3, 2016; and (b) did not view the above heading.

The judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, C, along with D and the Defendant, listen to the speech that he drinks alcohol at the drinking house operated by H on July 3, 2016, and listens to the speech that he smokess tobacco from H, and C, on his hand, can fully recognize the fact that he was exposed to H’s face at the h’s head at the hand and the head.

2) Meanwhile, examining the contents of the Defendant’s appearance and statement as a witness in the trial proceedings of the case regarding the above C, etc., if C et al. enters into two places to verify the images of the persons taking a portable phone within the room from the first time to the time when C et al. was arrested as a current offender, and D et al. did not look back to prevent the spread of beer and beer out, it would be difficult for C et al. to look back immediately next to C, and C et al. did not have any little time to look back.

A) First, we examine the argument that the defendant could not see C's face value of assault in order to verify the images of the persons who take a portable phone in a store by entering two rooms, and examining C's face value of assault.

(1) However, at the time of the initial testimony, the Defendant stated to the effect that, “The police did not come to two times to confirm the images of the motion picture as there was a person taking a portable phone in the process of dispute between C and H before arrival at the scene.” However, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation on the instant case, the Defendant called “the police” differently at the time of the investigation.