logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.09.02 2016노881
위증교사
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is no fact that the Defendant had instigated G, E, and F with perjury as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in so determining that all of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of the mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail, under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, it is justified and acceptable, and it does not seem to have any error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts differently.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment except for a punishment imposed once on the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act in 2014, the defendant is favorable to the defendant. However, the above crime is likely to obstruct the proper exercise of judicial power of the State by making it difficult to find substantial truth, undermining the people's trust in trial, and creating unnecessary judicial costs, and thus requires strict punishment. In the case of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, the defendant does not sell alcohol to E, etc. in his case of his own violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, but does not sell alcohol to E, etc., but does not interfere with the judicial action actively by instigating the above evidence to three witnesses beyond the limit of the right of defense as prescribed by the Act in order to prove that he would arbitrarily drink the G, and the nature of the crime is not weak.

arrow