beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.04.14 2015노1514

위증

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not affix a seal of D and H on each written implementation of the instant agreement (12 pages of investigation records), as well as did not place a place where the said written agreement was prepared.

Therefore, the testimony that the defendant is aware of the process of preparing the letter of execution of the instant agreement in the civil trial as stated in the facts charged is not false.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the testimony made by the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, constitutes a false statement contrary to his/her memory, and that the facts charged are sufficiently convicted.

A) The C/F, who is a party to the instant agreement implementation letter, was from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, to the effect that the Defendant was aware of the developments leading up to the preparation of the letter of execution of the instant agreement, and signed D/H seals directly on the letter of execution of the said agreement.

“The statements are consistently made.”

B) Upon receipt of a request from F, the Defendant: “The Defendant disposed of D’s real estate that was entrusted by the Defendant to H and paid part of the proceeds from the sale to F under the name of criminal agreement with F.” The Defendant presented a draft agreement with F on June 9, 2008 with the content of the payment of agreed amount through the above real estate disposal at the seat of the presence of C and F.

However, C did not accept the terms and conditions of the agreement, and instead attached to the I's office in the vicinity, each of the implementation of the agreement in this case and the defendant are 500 million won.