beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The defendant testified to the effect that he did not have a pre-sale contract that he did not receive a D, and that he did not make a false statement, but made a mistake in the purport of questioning. However, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of perjury in the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) While the victim was aware of the elements or illegality of larceny in advance due to understanding or approval of the movement of blodroid or scke as stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment below which found the guilty of larceny in the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of perjury is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the witness D of the court below, the reason why the previous statement was inconsistent, and the E-tel 302 of the E-tel, which was received as a payment guarantee for the construction cost by C, was the defendant, and the original copy was returned around May 2013, and it was clearly stated that the original was not returned until now. D also stated in the prosecutor's office in the same manner as the aforementioned testimony was stated in the prosecutor's office (Evidence No. 288 of the evidence record), but it was argued that there was no fact that the defendant received the pre-tax contract from D, one of the pre-tax contract was deducted from C, and one of them was kept in custody.
The defendant's position according to the correct purpose of questioning is again stated, and the defendant is the prosecutor's office.