beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.07.09 2015노358

위증

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. According to the confirmation document submitted by the Defendant in a civil lawsuit, the purport of the grounds for appeal is that “Around May 2013, the corporate seal of a limited partnership company G (hereinafter “G”) and a certified copy of the register were brought to the author and made a request for the payment of the balance under the name of G,” and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s testimony that “Defendant Company (G means “G”)’s seal impression and the certified copy of the register were affixed to the Plaintiff Company (limited partnership H).”

However, the court below judged that the defendant was dismissed, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. A. Around May 22, 2014, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was present as a witness of the instant case in the court of Cheongju District Court No. 229, 51, Cheongju District Court No. 2013Gahap3252, Cheongju-ro, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Cheongju-gu, Cheongju-do, and

1) On the question of whether Plaintiff D’s agent “E Company is a business entity which is registered to operate motor vehicle management business, such as sales, good offices, and vicarious application for registration, in the Republic of Korea,” the Defendant testified differently from the fact that the E Company operated by the Defendant was a registered business entity which was not registered with an administrative agency. 2) Although Plaintiff D’s agent obtained the Plaintiff’s seal impression and the certified copy of the corporate register, it is clearly required that D’s witness did not have the Defendant’s seal impression and the certified copy of the corporate register.

In relation to the question, "the fact was proved differently from the fact that the defendant company's seal imprint and the certified copy of the corporate register were not received.