beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant does not have any fact that he appeared as a witness of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against C and made a statement contrary to his memory, and only it is recognized that he made a statement that is inconsistent with his memory due to the collapse of the purpose of the newspaper or the mistake with respect
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory in light of the circumstances in its decision, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of original judgment, and on the ground that it is difficult to see that the defendant was aware of the fraud of the defendant, and that the facts which became final and conclusive by not guilty as to the fraud of the defendant against C do not interfere with the establishment of perjury. 2) If the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is examined in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of original judgment, it is proper to find and decide the above facts of the court below, and there is no error of misconception of the facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,
B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an initial offender with no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant’s false testimony does not appear to have an effect on the outcome of the trial.
However, the crime of this case is a proper exercise of judgment authority, which is a judicial action of the state, and discovery of substantive truth.