beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.14 2015고정1458

위증

Text

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around April 7, 2015, the Defendant: (b) from the court of law No. 354 of the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Branch, 38731 of the 2014 group 2015 group 38731 group 2015 group 38731 group; (c) it appears to be a clerical error.

was selected as a witness by attending the meeting.

Defendant 1, on July 5, 2005, transferred the shares of the Plaintiff’s defense counsel on the part of the Plaintiff’s defense counsel during the trial of the instant case to Defendant D’s ownership, but was requested to transfer the shares from Defendant D before the transfer of ownership.

“I do not have any question.”

“The statement was made.”

(2) In 2012, "the witness" means that the second and second punishment of the witness in the Chinese house near the digital transition base to Seoul, the Seoul, and the third and third parties are damped.

“I cannot memory the question “I”.

“The statement was made.”

(3) The witness shall be deemed to have worked in the E (State).

“I have worked” for any question.

“The statement was made.”

④ On June 30, 2005, the Defendant borrowed five million won from the husband of the Plaintiff.

‘Neither borrowed nor borrowed’ questions.

In fact, the defendant is a party to the above case, and the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory in order to make a statement favorable to the other D.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006).

However, this Court is legitimate.