logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.08.13 2015고단638
위증
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On June 3, 2014, the summary of the facts charged was present at the court of Law No. 320 of the Incheon District Court of Law No. 320, Nam-dong, Incheon, Incheon, in order to take an oath against Defendant C (hereinafter “relevant criminal case”), and give testimony after taking an oath as a witness. The facts charged in the case in question are that the above C, who is the defendant's son, had no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money, deceiving E, who is a DNA employee working for the defendant, and 30,000 won by deceiving him/her.

The Defendant stated that C was present at the above 30 million won and affixed a seal on the loan certificate, and that 30,000 won deposited in the Defendant’s account was known that it was the money borrowed as above, the Defendant stated that “I asked to the question “I would not prepare the loan certificate which the obligor has recorded as a witness,” and that “I would not prepare the loan certificate,” and “I would like to answer the question whether I would not prepare the loan certificate,” and “I would like to answer the question whether I would have deposited 30 million won into the witness’s account,” and “I would like to answer the question whether I would have borrowed the Defendant regardless of the witness?”

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

2. In a criminal trial on board, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if such proof is insufficient, the conviction cannot be made against the defendant even if there is a suspicion that he/she is guilty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). Therefore, for the purpose of recognizing a witness’s statement as an perjury, the contents of the statement are as follows.

arrow