logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.02.07 2013노3109
위증
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the overall testimony of the defendant is “F actually proceeded with the brokerage business,” and it does not coincide with objective facts, and the defendant testified that “F has provided an explanation about the object of brokerage,” contrary to his memory, and it is difficult to view that the defendant merely used the legal language of “Plaintiff and the defendant,” and it is difficult to view that he/she used the legal language of “the plaintiff and the defendant,” thereby sufficiently recognizing

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant worked as a broker assistant at the office of “E Licensed Real Estate Agent” operated by D, a licensed real estate agent in Nam-gu, Incheon, with F. On August 5, 2011, the Defendant was present at the Plaintiff’s witness and took an oath in the lawsuit of claiming damages against the said D, by failing to peruse the certified copy of the register, during the process of mediating the lease of an apartment. Accordingly, the lessee (G) failed to properly peruse the said D’s register. Accordingly, the said D was substantially relayd by the said F. Accordingly, the Defendant was present at the Plaintiff’s witness in the lawsuit of claiming damages, such as the amount of indemnity filed against the said D. (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

On October 31, 2012, the Defendant testified that “At the time of the contract, the description of the object of brokerage was directly harmed by G” in the court of Law No. 414, Nam-dong Incheon, Nam-dong, Incheon, Incheon, the Defendant testified that “The Defendant would have asked G to the question.”

However, in fact, the explanation of the above object of brokerage was made by the plaintiff D, and the defendant was present at the time of the preparation of the lease contract and witness in whole.

Accordingly, the defendant, as a witness who has taken an oath, made a false statement contrary to his memory, and perjury.

B. Whether the testimony of the witness 1 witness is false in contravention of memory will be a part of the simple framework of the testimony.

arrow