본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.11.08 2017노447

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.


A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the court below 2 of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Defendant A’s reasoning that Defendant A gave a merta pest to Defendant B is due to the creation of a ship for the purpose of creating one’s own investigation merit, and that giving a merta pest is not attributable to E’s request or good offices, Defendant A’s statement cannot be deemed as perjury, and it was difficult for Defendant A to speak the truth in the circumstance of denying facts charged in the case of No. 2017No. 447.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment of 2 years, confiscation, collection of 540,000 won, and the second instance court: imprisonment of 4 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (4 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.


(1) As to the part of the judgment of the court below of first instance that acquitted the Defendant as an offender, the informant’s investigation agency and the legal statement of AA that identified the Defendant as an offender are reliable, the facts charged regarding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the acquittal can be recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence 1 is too unhued and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio a judgment (as to Defendant A), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A. The judgment of the court below ex officio in relation to the consolidation was reviewed together with each appeal case against the judgment below. Each of the offenses against Defendant A, which the court below acknowledged, against Defendant A, shall be sentenced to one sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the guilty part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the second instance cannot be maintained further.

B. Before a judgment on perjury becomes final and conclusive by a person who committed an ex officio judgment on perjury.