logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.09.01 2015노2422
위증
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

On March 16, 2013, around the misunderstanding of facts, the LM5 vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) parked at the entrance of the JJ “Kel” (hereinafter “the instant telecom”) was not set up, and the key was sticked to the knife so that anyone can move the instant vehicle.

Even if it is not so, the defendant is memoryd with the above contents, and only the defendant has made a statement that is memoryed at the time of testimony as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, while being aware of the fact that, at the time of the instant case, the door of the instant vehicle parked at the entrance of the instant telecom, could not move the instant vehicle if he/she was not a person holding the key, he/she made a false statement contrary to memory, such as the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

E makes a statement that the door of the instant vehicle parked at the entrance of the instant telecom at the time of the instant case, which is generally consistent with the investigation agency and the lower court’s trial, is consistent in detail and consistent to the extent that it is impossible to make a statement unless he/she had direct experience, and there is no circumstance that the circumstances leading up to the statement are natural, as well as the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of falsity. Therefore, it can be trusted.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, despite the Defendant’s demand for the eviction, came to go to the lessee F who is not leaving the instant telecom.

arrow