logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.06 2018고단556
위증
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 20, 2017, at the court of Suwon District Court No. 208, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Defendant’s case and was notified of the right to refuse to testify and the punishment for perjury. After taking an oath, the Defendant testified on the above Defendant case.

Therefore, the prosecutor provided the defendant with a "business owner C with a written contract with the witness (the defendant) and provided the customer "Handbags (the similarity in the way that enables male customers to see by hand)". It is necessary to say that the prosecutor would be necessary if the customer wishes to do so.

The defendant who is asked " shall have no time to speak (C)."

The second prosecutor answers to the Defendant, and the second prosecutor’s statement to the Defendant that “the owner of the business would have “Handbling” the witness only once.

The Defendant asked “I” answer to the Defendant, and later, the defense counsel did not let the Defendant “I” before entering the room to the customer test.

The Defendant asked “(C)” was “(E) but I had to do so.”

The defense counsel gives answers to the defendant, and the defendant's "the witness (the defendant)" is a timely statement to the criminal defendant (the police officer who has controlled sexual traffic by pretending to customers) that he/she goes out of the panty.

The Defendant asked “I never speak.”

“The answer was made.”

However, there was a fact that around March 2, 2016, C received 80,000 won for sexual traffic and caused the Defendant, an employee, to do so against male customers, who are traffic policemen, to do so, so-called “Handbling,” and the Defendant said that he exceeded the panty, which would enable the police officer in charge of the control to stop and end up the “Handbling.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in court;

arrow