logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.05.10 2016고단487
위증
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 8, 2013, the Defendant appeared and arranged as a witness of the fraud case of the above court 2013 senior 199 G in order to the effect that, in the court of the Daejeon District Court Support No. 1 of the Daejeon District Court, the Defendant, along with the Defendant, deceiving a financial institution, obtained a loan of KRW 30 million under the pretext of the purchase price for the vehicle, and acquired the above money, and then the Defendant was aware of how the prosecutor “BMW car out.”

I asked "," and "I would like to obtain a loan under the name of the defendant (G) to find it on this Internet, and if you would not obtain it, I will not obtain it.

The answer to "I," and the defense counsel, "I wish to find out the vehicle which is used on the Internet to purchase the vehicle," and asked "I am to see whether the person is a witness, and I am to see the defendant."

As a result of the Internet search, "W-740LI was known in the trading company of a mutually unclaimed used motor vehicle in Pyeongtaek," and "WW-740LI was asked "...."

However, in fact, the Defendant, according to H’s proposal, had the intent to deceiving a financial company to obtain a loan from the financial company for the purchase price of the vehicle, and had purchased the BMW-740LI vehicle directly designated by the above H in the name of the Defendant and delivered the said vehicle to H. During the loan process, G, the husband of the Defendant, was involved in the Defendant’s fraud by sending his identification card to the financial company to secure the debtor’s ability to repay at the time of signing the contract, and there was no fact that the Defendant participated in the Defendant’s fraud by directly searching for the vehicle on the Internet to purchase the said vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each protocol of examination of witness;

1. Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 152 of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

arrow