logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.08.21 2013고정250
위증
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2012, around 15:30 on November 22, 2012, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the above court 2012Gadan2592, which the Plaintiff filed against Defendant D, and taken an oath.

The Defendant testified to the Defendant (D) of the foregoing case that “The Plaintiff (C) paid money to the Defendant (D) along with the wife and borrowed money from the Defendant (D), and the Defendant (D) gave money to the Defendant (C) at F’s house, and the Plaintiff (C) asked the Plaintiff “I am asked the Plaintiff that he would directly give KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff,” and “I am asked the Plaintiff that she would have given the Plaintiff a fee of KRW 10 million,” and “I am asked the Plaintiff that she would have given her a fee of KRW 10 million.”

However, in fact, since D was not paid in cash but remitted from D’s post office account (G) on November 12, 2007 to C’s post office account (H), the Defendant did not directly witness D’s giving KRW 10 million to C.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to C, F, I, and E;

1. Recording notes, records of examination of witnesses, records of financial transactions, inquiry of details of financial transactions, and application of statutes on judgment;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentence of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order reflects the late and wrongness of the defendant, although the defendant gives a perjury, it seems that there is no influence on the judgment in civil case, there is no history of a fine or heavier, and there was money transaction several times between C and D, and the defendant seems to have caused the perjury in this case by taking account of the fact that the defendant was aware of, and thus, the defendant appears to have caused the perjury in this case.

arrow