(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.11.10 2015노907 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.11.10 2015노907

위증

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the examination protocol of the examination of witness by the Gwangju District Court 2014Kadan440, Gwangju District Court 2014Kadan440, the defendant's statement as stated in the facts charged can be recognized as constituting perjury, but the court below acquitted the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension

Judgment

A. On July 11, 2014, around 15:30 on July 11, 201, the Defendant testified to the effect that, at the court of Gwangju District Court Decision 202, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the larceny case against the said court No. 2014Kadan440, and testified to the effect that “A would not have taken place while making a monetary call with the F on June 13, 2014” with respect to the ballot papers in the E apartment management office, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “C would take place” while making a monetary call with F.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

B. The lower court determined: (a) the Defendant did not witness the fact that C was taking a ballot paper at the time of F and telephone calls on June 13, 2013; (b) however, G as the manager of G leaves the office of management, he/she, who was a worker on duty, asked him/her about the whereabouts of the ballot paper.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant gave testimony on July 11, 2014; (b) the Defendant respondeded to the purport that G would have taken a ballot paper to the prosecutor’s question after the same statement as the facts charged when he gives testimony on July 11, 2014; (c) the Defendant has no direct witness to C with a ballot paper; and (b) the Defendant asked the counsel and the presiding judge to ask for whether there was no marking from the ballot paper; and (c) the Defendant responded to each question at the defense counsel and the presiding judge’s inquiry at the time of the testimony. As such, the Defendant stated as the facts charged by mistake that the prosecutor’s question at the time of the testimony was based on the premise that C’s criminal act of

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.06.10 2015가합1355

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2015.06.11 2015고정69

-인천지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노3750

-대전지방법원 2015.07.16 2014노1249

-춘천지방법원 2019.11.15 2019노323