위증
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the body of the net G, who is well aware of the financial transaction relationship between the past G and the siblings, and the statement is consistent and the defendant has sufficient motive for perjury. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant's testimony was false in violation of memory, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The court of this case revised ex officio, according to the content of the recording in which the defendant appeared and testified as a witness, to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the facts charged.
around 15:00 on April 7, 2015, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the purchase price case No. 354, 2014 grouped to 38731, in the court of Busan District Court Decision 354, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul.
On July 5, 2005, the Defendant transferred to Defendant D the shares of the Plaintiff’s agent (hereinafter “Defendant D”) on July 5, 2005, but before he received a request from Defendant D to transfer the shares.
“I will no question you are.”
The second punishment of the witness in the Chinese house near the digital steel station in Seoul in 2012 and the second punishment of the witness is the plaintiff, who is sentenced to three.
“I will not memory the question in question.”
3. The witness has been working in E Co., Ltd.
"To answer the question of "..", and (4) The witness does not borrow five million won from the husband of the plaintiff after the opening of the bank.
“I will no question you are.”
“The statement was made.”
However, in fact, the defendant was the party to the above case, and was made a false statement in order to make a favorable statement to D who is a large punishment of the defendant.
Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory.
3...