beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the case of the perjury of this case (the Busan District Court No. 2015No3439, hereinafter referred to as "the case of this case") even though he testified as it is about the facts. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The lower court determined that the lower court made a false statement contrary to memory, on the grounds that according to the screen of CCTV images for the purpose of crime prevention in Dong-gu, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was clearly far far far away from the fire engine and C, and the Defendant’s location was sufficiently able to view C’s behavior in the location of the Defendant, and it is difficult to view C’s view out of the Defendant’s view that he was drinking to the fire brigade members, and that the Defendant made a false statement against memory.
In light of the above circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below were met, namely, that the defendant was able to go to the place where the first-aid vehicle was located, that the defendant was approaching C, that the defendant was approaching the right side of the first-aid vehicle, and that the defendant was approaching C while the first-aid vehicle was approaching the right side of the first-aid vehicle. The defendant first arrived at C before the first first of the first first of the first first of the first first of the first first first of the first first first of the first-aid vehicle, and the first first first of the first first first first of the first first first first first of the first first first of the second-aid vehicle. However, at the time of the first first of the first-aid vehicle's access to C, the defendant was a witness in this case, and therefore, the distance of the first day after the second of the second day was set to Da, "I was set to the next day", and then made a statement to C.