logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2013.10.29 2012고단108
위증
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 23, 2011, in the case of defamation against Defendant E at the Daejeon District Court 318, the Daejeon District Court 318, which was located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on March 23, 2011, the Defendants convicted Defendant E of the aforementioned case of “E, at the beginning of September 2009, was convicted of the crime of defamation against Defendant E of the said court: “F, at the seat of F, was a woman or a handicapped woman or a disabled woman who was drinking in G, became a serious problem with F, her husband, and her husband, and her husband was married to the court, and F, even after her husband was divorced to the public.” On November 209, 2009, the Defendants convicted Defendant A of a false fact that “F and drinking women are good, she became aware of the spirit of the deceased in the Dong Ne, thereby damaging F and H’s reputation.”

was present as a witness and taken an oath.

1. Defendant A’s defense counsel stated, “I would like to confirm that E had talked about the phone and talked about the fact that she had the F president and she had a son to drinked to G with the knowledge of this fact and caused the husband to have a son to have this fact, and the F president and H C had a divorce until the court. As a result, the case stated, “I would like to confirm that E had a son’s talked with the public test resident of the F president, and that there was a fact that she had talked directly with the public.” The witness testifieded that “I will not” to ask the witness of the above horse, and “I would like to ask the witness,” and “I would like to have “I would like to have a woman F and f women who drinked from E by telephone from around November 2009, I would like to have a good mind that I would have known the relevant spirit from Dong N.”

However, there was a fact that the defendant had seen the above remarks from E.

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

2. Defendant B.

arrow