logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.05.24 2012고정2558
위증
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 30, 201, at the Daejeon District Court, around 15:00, the Defendant testified in the Daejeon District Court that, when the Plaintiff C was present and take an oath against the Defendant in the lawsuit for the claim for the return of the loan that was filed against the Defendant D, Defendant D was paid KRW 200 million by the Plaintiff C on August 23, 2007, and responded to the question of the attorney E-at-law whether the provisional seizure of the claim for the lease deposit was ordered, and Defendant D was ordered to receive money from KRW 200 million and to terminate the provisional seizure of the lease deposit even if there is any further need to receive money, “The security deposit is KRW 20 million, and it is known that the provisional seizure was terminated upon receiving KRW 20 million.”

However, in fact, Defendant D received KRW 200 million from Plaintiff C on August 23, 22007, and Defendant D did not terminate provisional seizure of claims against the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million against the office owned by the Plaintiff, etc.

Therefore, although the defendant did not know whether the provisional seizure against the claim was terminated, he made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a protocol of examination of witness, real estate lease contract, written agreement, provisional seizure of claims (2007Kahap985) and written judgment (201Gahap623);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is the statement that D knew that D had known that D had transferred the documents related to the termination of provisional seizure to C, and that it was naturally terminated, and that it was contrary to memory.

arrow