위증
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.
However, the above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 12, 2010, when the Defendant was aware of the fact that H had been notified of the scheduled set-off in advance to D who operated the F, the third team leader of the business of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, he testified in D’s criminal trial on January 12, 2010. No one of the officers and employees of C (hereinafter “C”) including the Defendant prior to receiving the second steel supply, who notified D of the scheduled set-off.
Therefore, the testimony of the defendant as stated in the facts charged can not be regarded as a false testimony contrary to memory.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (i) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the issue of this case is whether D and C have delivered steel bars twice in advance after consultation with D and C to offset the existing accounts receivable of D against the said 1 and 2 accounts receivable of D and C, and whether the Defendant was aware of such circumstances.
⑵ 1차 납품 당시 사전협의가 있었는지 여부와 이에 대한 피고인의 인식 여부 ㈎ H은 D의 형사사건(수사기관 및 법정), 이 사건 수사기관 및 원심법정에서, D이 철근 납품을 제안함에 따라 C의 내부 회의를 거쳐 D의 C에 대한 기존 미수금채무와 위 철근대금을 상계하는 조건으로 납품받을 수 있음을 D에게 제시했고, D이 처음에는 현금결제를 요구했으나 C에서 상계조건이 아니면 납품을 받을 수 없다고 하자 D이 이에 동의하여 납품을 받게 되었다는 취지로 진술하였고, D도 자신의 형사사건에서 이에 부합하는 진술을 하였으므로, 1차 철근 납품 당시에는 D과 C 사이에 상계처리라는 결제조건에 관하여...