logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.03.30 2016노1233
위증
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the facts, since the defendant made a statement as to his memory at the time of testimony in the court, and there was no fact that he made a statement contrary to his memory, and thereby convicted the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of legal principles and the assertion of misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant also asserted the same content as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this point on the following grounds.

① Around April 16, 2012, F Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract with H farming association corporations (representative D) for the construction of neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”).

② From June 2012, E participated in the instant construction project as a site warden for the structural part of the instant construction project.

③ E, while serving as the above site warden, visited G 2 to 3 times with the F Director J, but did not visit G along with D, the representative director of H farming association.

④ While working at the above site E, the Defendant signed that he received the pertinent goods immediately or on the next delivery date when delivering the supplied goods of G at the construction site of this case.

⑤ Examining the previous transaction relation between G and D, the reason why G supplied the instant materials, the period of service and duties of the Defendant, the meaning and purport of the examination in the examination process of the case No. 2014Na 13842, which the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness, and the order of inquiry, the context before and after the instant construction work, and the circumstances leading up to testimony, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have known that D visited the instant materials with E, etc. before the instant construction work.

arrow