logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.07.11 2018노504
무고
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal brought a complaint against C in civil litigation with regard to the delivery of stores in the B market. However, the Defendant filed a complaint against C on the ground that the content of C is different from that of C’s public official E, F’s public official E, F’s public official E, and F’s public official E, F’s B market store user fee receipt (the date of November 19, 2004, January 19, 2006, and March 14, 2006; hereinafter “instant receipt”).

However, the Defendant initially submitted to an investigative agency a written complaint stating that “a strong doubt that does not forge an official document exists”, “C and other relevant persons should thoroughly investigate the truth and clarify the truth,” etc. In addition, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a crime against the Defendant, on the ground that G as indicated in the instant receipt was aware that the payer had actually operated the store since 2005, and that H stores listed in the said receipt did not actually existed.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, stated the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant filed a complaint against C based only on the drilling without asking whether the payer and the amount to be paid were forged on the D viewer’s side on which the instant receipt was drawn up and issued, and ② the Defendant clearly known by the investigative agency that “G acquired a store from I and carried out funeral services by November 2006,” and that “the Defendant was aware that the said receipt may be issued to G in the case of a receipt as of January 19, 2006 and March 14, 206, at least, the Defendant was aware that the said receipt may be issued to G, and ③ the Defendant was aware of the fact that the location of the store number and the guidance installed at the entrance of the market at which the permission for use was granted in the civil litigation process with C and that the store was permitted to be used by G due to the change in the location of the store at which G was installed.

arrow