위증
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) did not have trained the F Burial Managers belonging to H (hereinafter “H”) and provided H with education to the said store managers on its own.
On December 21, 2012, the Defendant testified a false fact contrary to memory, on the grounds that the content of testimony as stated in the facts charged in the Seoul Central District Court 2012Ga case 43636, the damages claim (the main claim) and the damages claim (the counterclaim) No. 123761, the group 123761 (the counterclaim) was not false.
If the testimony of the defendant is false, the defendant did not properly understand the purport of questioning about the defect in the witness examination process of the above civil procedure, or gave the same answer as the facts charged by mistake. Thus, the defendant did not have the intention of perjury.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Summary and judgment of the facts charged
A. The summary of the facts charged is H’s employee who received a contract for the operation and management of the foregoing “F” from G operating a four-day Art shop in the name of “F” from around August 1, 2011 to E department stores.
On December 21, 2012, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in Seoul Central District Court 557, Seoul Central District Court 557, in Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, as a witness of the above court 2012Gadan 43636, the damage claim (such as main claim) and the damage claim (Counterclaim) No. 123761 (Counterclaim) brought by G against H, which was brought by G against H, as a witness, and then “from January 1 to October 15, 2012, the Defendant provided education to the new manager of the Defendant at his own expense.”
“The Plaintiff’s agent is not “the Plaintiff’s question.”
At the time, the defendant company's own manager.