위증
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal is that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts based on the E’s statement without credibility, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the remaining evidence, even if the court below excluded the E’s statement from the evidence legitimately adopted and examined, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had already known of the prohibition of sub-lease at the time of opening the convenience store of this case. Although the content of E’s statement was somewhat inconsistent according to the defense counsel’s assertion, it is not consistent.
However, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the entire statements such as E's prosecutor's office and court below's order.
I would like to say.
피고인이 증인으로 출석한 당해 사건에서, 피고인은 ‘개점식 당시 C가 자신에게 C 운영의 Q㈜의 직원으로 행동하라고 시켰다. C는 ㈜O 측에서 방문하여 편의점을 누가 운영하는지 물으면 C가 운영하는 것이라고 말하라고 시켰다.’고 진술하였고, 피고인의 어머니인 N 또한 증인으로 출석하여 ‘C가 자신에게 혹시 ㈜O 측에서 편의점을 누가 운영하는지 물어보면 C가 운영한다고 말하라고 지시하였다. 실제로 편의점을 오픈하는 날 C가 개점식에 참여한 ㈜O 측 직원들에게 자신이 운영하는 것처럼 하여 주도적으로 개점식을 하였다.’고 진술하였다.
In addition to the instant convenience store, the Defendant operated the “T” at the time, and the “T” convenience store was also the same as the instant convenience store as the instant convenience store and thus, it is difficult to view that there was a provision prohibiting sub-lease only in the case of the instant convenience store, since there was a provision prohibiting sub-lease.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.