logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.03 2017노2223
위증등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles) Doctrine to perjury (1) The fact of the Defendant’s perjury was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the indirect evidence or circumstance alone.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The F’s statement is the only evidence that directly corresponds to this part of the facts charged, and the statement is not consistent, ② its statement is reversed several times in the prosecutor’s investigation, ③ there was no reason to instigate F’s perjury, whereas F had a perjury.

In full view of the fact that there was a motive to make a false statement, and the fact that the F was not paid or promised to receive the payment in return for perjury, the F’s statement that the Defendant instigated the perjury is not reliable.

(2) The testimony made by F cannot be deemed as perjury because it is merely a case where the question itself is ambiguous, or where the F makes an answer by misunderstanding the purport of questioning, or where the F is consistent with F’s memory.

(3) Even according to the F’s statement, F cannot be deemed to have been perjury upon the request of the Defendant.

B) The testimony of "(1) that the Defendant told F of his employment solicitation only once" cannot be the perjury by mistake.

(2) Defendant’s testimony, “There is no fact that F et al. visited E members with respect to the adjustment of Q business between G and T,” and testimony, “No fact that E et al. al. had aided E members’ schedule or arranged for an interview with the president during the audit process at the Board of Audit and Inspection,” did not prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that each of the above testimony violated Defendant’s memory.

(3) The defendant's "(in the process of prosecutorial investigation) requested F to arrange as if the person who requested P to be employed was the head of E's regional office U.S. office.

arrow