Cases of denying the criminal intent of perjury

In a civil lawsuit seeking the payment of the unpaid amount of money, etc. filed by the owner against the fraternity (A), if the head of his own system, which caused the defendants to use as evidence to the above fraternity as evidence, does not peep the contents of the above section in the court, and it is difficult to conclude that the above defendants made a false public tender under the recognition that the contents of the above section were not confirmed daily and that the above section was in his possession. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the above defendants made a false public tender under the recognition that the above section's subscription number was contrary to memory.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor (as to the Defendant)

Jeju District Court Decision 81No74 delivered on May 28, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defendant 1, 2, and 3's perjury

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by the court below, Defendant 4, based on macroficial evidence, organized 24 times the winning bid and 24 numbers between around August 1972 and around September 1973, and Non-Party 4, among Non-Party 155, joined each of the above 20 boundaries and operated the above system from around that time without any specific date, and Defendant 4, on July 1, 1974, issued a loan certificate of 10 million won to the above Kim Young-young on the basis that the above 10 million won was charged to the above 1,00,000 won from among the fraternitys paid by the above 1,00 won to the above 1,00 won and the above 1,000 won was not paid to the above 4, and the above 4,000 won was not paid to the above 1,000 won, and the above 4,000 won was alleged to be necessary for the above 4,000.

After that, the above defendants were the witnesses of the above civil procedure brought by the defendant 4, and the defense counsel of the defendant 4 presented the above passbook at the time and place as stated in the indictment of this case, and stated that this was to be asked about whether the above defendants possessed by the above defendants, and that the above Kim Young-dong's subscription unit number is 155, the above defendants legally confirmed the facts that the above defendants stated their number in light of the above Kim Young-dong's subscription unit.

In this case, the court below's judgment is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to perjury, as pointed out in the lawsuit, even if the above defendants were to use the above defendants 4 as evidence for civil procedure, and they were sent to the above court by the defendant 4. However, in this case where the above defendants did not confirm the contents of the above defendant's body in a domestic court without a daily confirmation of the contents of the above defendant's body, and it is hard to conclude that the above defendants made a false statement under the recognition that they made a statement of the above Kim Young-young's membership number, which goes against memory. The court below's judgment is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to perjury, as it points out.

2. As to Defendant 4’s attempted fraud

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the fraternity existed between Defendant 4 and the above Kim Young-young has been cancelled, and therefore, Defendant 4 filed a civil lawsuit claiming the payment of the unpaid payment deposit, etc. against the above Kim Young-young on the premise of the existence of the above fraternity, and it is difficult to view it as a so-called litigation fraud raised as an intent to enjoy property. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against the rules of evidence pointing out.

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit and is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)