위증
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The defendant consistently asserted to the effect that "A 1 million won was dryed in the Nong Bank of Korea, and C has observed this return to D," which is different from C and D's statement. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant consistently denied the facts charged until the lower court’s case No. 2016 high order 475 and the lower court’s trial; and that part of the Defendant’s false statement was found to be a witness to return KRW 1 million received from D on Mar. 11, 2015 to D. In the lower judgment, “one million won received from D” was sent to C.
Although stated “,” it appears to be erroneous.
“The content of the Account (F) of D.C. The fact that D actually entered the fact that D received KRW 1 million from C from D on March 11, 2015 (Evidence No. 164 pages), D and C traded a passbook of KRW 25 million at the branch of Nonghyup Bank over the two days on March 10, 2015 and March 11, 2015, and the Defendant was also at the bank site on March 11, 2015. Thus, as C deposited KRW 1 million to D, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s statement was false, and D’s statement was put to question as to whether it was deposited from C.
“In response,” and in the presence of a witness of the instant case, “as a witness of the instant case calls for a communications guarantee, to receive money from C, 1,00,000 won
“The Bank,” and, if there was a bank together with C, is paid in cash directly.
the question. The question.