beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.02 2016노3242

위증

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants did not make a false statement contrary to memory, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendants made a false statement contrary to their memory in testimony as stated in the instant facts charged is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake is without merit.

① Defendant B made the following statements at an investigative agency as the complainant in the case of injury, etc. to five persons, including D, etc.

The summary of the complaint is essential.

The answer A maintained the relationship between the patriarche and the patriarche in the Republic of Korea one year prior to the arrival of the answer A, and at that time, A was divorced. At that time, I knew A was divorced by March of this year.

However, in March of this year, it was difficult to us from April of this year to us and us to us to see that this issue was in a separate state with wife, and that she should raise us. It was difficult to us to us in Daegu E in the past of this year.

② While recognizing that Defendant B was a patriotic relationship before living together (at least 326 pages of investigation record), Defendant B made a statement that he was not in a petuous relationship with the assistant custodyer. However, Defendant B appears to have no particular dispute with Defendant A even with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant A was not divorced, and Defendant B made a statement that the circumstance in which Defendant B took care of Defendant A’s her father was the reason that she had an appraisal of her good for Defendant A., it is difficult to believe the above statement.