logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.30 2017고단2444
위증
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten million won.

When the accused does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 14:00 on January 16, 2017, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraud case against the above court No. 2016Kadan3664, the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 9 located in Asan-ro 404, Gasan-ro, Seoul, Seoul.

The Defendant testified to the effect that, around January 2015, the Defendant testified to “I would know about the question of “I would have been able to operate C immediately if I paid only KRW 1,50,000,000,000 for the unpaid management expenses,” the attorney testified to the effect that “I would not know how I would have made a deposit or how I would have dealt with the KRW 1,50,000,000 deposited into the account managed by the witness,” “I would know how I would have been dealt with, and how I would have been dealt with.” The presiding judge testified to the effect that I would not know how I would have “I would have been able to operate C if I would pay KRW 1,50,000,000.”

However, on January 2015, the Defendant said that it would allow C to operate if it pays KRW 150,000 to B, and that D deposited KRW 150,000,000 and that it had already been aware of the circumstances surrounding the payment of the said money from E.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Testimony for each of the B, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of investment contract (List 49);

1. Penalty provisions: Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act and selection of fines;

1. At the time, the summary of the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is the representative of G corporation whose money was deposited at the time. However, in the process of agreement between the Defendant and H as an arbitration, the Defendant and H’s criminal case was in excess of the management service company I, the management service company I, the company head of the relevant company, and the company head of the bank, the seal impression, etc. for the operation of the management service company, the management service company I, the management service company, and the company head of the bank, etc. for this purpose. Therefore, it was not at a location to reduce the right to operate the trading company in return for KRW 150,000,

arrow