The case denying the credibility of confessions made by Defendant B and acquitted Defendant B, on the grounds that Defendant B appeared as a witness in a criminal trial against the above accusation case, and testimony conforming to the above accusation case was made. As to the facts charged that Defendant A made a false accusation and perjury, the case affirming the credibility of confessions made by Defendant B and acquitted Defendant B.

The case denying the credibility of confessions made by Defendant A and acquitted Defendant B on the charges that Defendant B appeared as a witness in a criminal trial against the above accusation case, and gave testimony that conforms to the contents of the above accusation, on the grounds that Defendant B made a false accusation and perjury.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

00.00

Attorney Choi Byung-hee et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,00 and fine of KRW 1,00,00 for the crimes of KRW 2 of the holding.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won each day into one day.

With regard to Defendant 1, the period of detention in a workhouse with regard to a fine prescribed in the crimes of No. 1 as indicated in the holding 60 days among the detention days before the rendering of this judgment, and the period of detention in a workhouse with regard to a fine prescribed in the crimes of No. 2 as indicated

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the charge of accusation and Defendant 2 are acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant 1 was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment for fraud and 2 years of probation at the Gwangju District Court on December 15, 2004, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 23th of the same month and is currently in the period of probation, and the fact does not intend to work as an employee at an entertainment establishment or a tea even if he received a prepaid payment,

1. On May 19, 2004, a false statement to the effect that "a person will work as an employee at a entertainment establishment in the Jeju-do Office of Gwangju Northern District of 650,000 won with a 5 million won advance payment to a victim 1 at a entertainment establishment located in the Jeju-gu Office of Mandong-gu of 650-8, Gwangju-gu, as an employee, shall receive 5 million won from the victim to the account of Defendant 2 in advance payment on the same day."

2. On December 23, 2004, at the (trade name omitted), the victim 2 operated (trade name omitted) located in the Singu-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter address omitted) in order to the effect that "the victim will work in good faith for one month," and that the victim will work in good faith for one month," the victim received KRW 2 million from the victim on the 24th day of the same month, 09:00,000 as the advance payment, and the victim acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Statement of each police statement of the victim and the person who is sentenced to punishment;

1. A report on criminal records, previous records of disposition, and results of confirmation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of Fine)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Division of Non-Offense

1. The gist of Defendant 1’s accusation and the facts charged against Defendant 2

A. On May 6, 2004, at around 03:00 on May 6, 2004, Defendant 1 did not compel Nonindicted Party 1 to prepare a 15 million won loan certificate from the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju to the Defendant, and even though there was no fact that Nonindicted Party 1 detained the Defendant in the above apartment from around 03:00 on the same day to 12:00 on the same day, Defendant 1 submitted to the above Nonindicted Party 1 a penal complaint for the purpose of having the Defendant punished. In addition, on May 11, 2004, on May 5, 2004 (the name of Nonindicted Party 1’s temporary name omitted): Non-Indicted Party 1’s main name, Non-Indicted Party 1’s name, and Non-Indicted Party 1’s name, who did not take advantage of his/her father and his/her father’s mother, submitted to the above police station for punishment for damages including a one million won loan certificate.

B. On September 9, 2004, Defendant 2 appeared at the court of Gwangju-dong District Court 402, Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, as a witness, and testified after taking an oath against Defendant 1 (name omitted of Nonparty 1) of the above court, such as the abduction of minors, etc., Defendant 2 made a false statement against the prosecutor's "I need to use a loan certificate on the new wall and use a loan certificate in spite of the fact that Defendant 1 does not prevent him from forcing him to use the loan certificate or getting out of the court," and "I want to use a loan certificate because the Defendant continued to force him to use a loan certificate of 15 million won."

2. The judgment of this Court

A. On the contrary, Defendant 1 consistently denies the above facts charged, Defendant 2 recognized all the above facts charged differently from the case where the deceased Nonindicted Party 1 (Death on December 19, 2004) was the Defendant. In addition, there are other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as Kim Mam, Nonindicted 3’s respective statements, communications (fact-finding) data, and written rulings.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the details of Defendant 1’s accusation and the testimony of Defendant 2 constitute a false accusation or perjury that Nonindicted Party 1 forced Defendant 1 to detain Defendant 1 and use a 15 million won loan certificate.

First, the direct evidence that corresponds to the above facts charged lies in the prosecutor's office and the court. However, as to the fact that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3 got to move to the office of the non-indicted 1 without the permission of the defendant 1, all the defendants stated to the same effect. The prosecutor did not prosecute this part of the prosecutor's complaint even though it is included in the contents of the non-indicted 1's testimony. The defendants' statements were recognized as well as the non-indicted 1's office from around 23:00 on May 5, 200 to 12:0 on the following day. Furthermore, it is difficult to conclude that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3 were to have the non-indicted 1 et al.'s testimony made by the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's prosecutor's office, and there is no doubt that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 were to have the non-indicted 2's testimony made by the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 25's complaint.

Next, according to the notice of communications data submitted by the prosecutor as evidence and the judgment, when the Defendants entered the office of Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and this court that Nonindicted Party 1 had been smoking in the apartment bed, was found to have been false, and the fact that Defendant 1 used a mobile phone several times for about one hour after Nonindicted Party 1 entered the office of Nonindicted Party 1, may also be acknowledged. However, this fact may be proven to undermine the credibility of Defendant 1’s statement, but it does not directly prove the facts charged in the instant case.

In addition, if the contents of the complaint are not a false fact but a mere exaggeration of the situation based on the fact, the crime of false accusation is not established. The whole purport of the witness's testimony is consistent with the objective fact and it is not a notarial act contrary to his memory, even if it is inconsistent with his memory, it cannot be a perjury. In addition, while the defendant was urged by Nonindicted 1 to go to the business place promised by Nonindicted 1, he was sent to his own house, and the defendant 1 was forced to go to his own house for about 12 hours, in light of the situation where the defendant 1 was forced to go to go to his own house. Even if the act of Nonindicted 1 does not constitute a crime of confinement under the Criminal Act, so long as the defendants' physical freedom is partly restricted, the defendants' act cannot be punished as a crime of false accusation or perjury.

Therefore, each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Cho Jae-jin