logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.17 2015노4470
위증
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Although credibility of the testimony of J, K, and L, which correspond to the facts charged in the facts charged, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to believe them, and even according to the F's statement adopted by the court below, the Defendant testified that F, H, and I stated the blank of the consent, and the Defendant testified that "F, H, and I stated in F alone" was "F alone," so the court below acquitted the Defendant, even though this part of the Defendant's statement is obvious,. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the original instance, including the witness F and M’s respective statutory statements, the court below rejected the Defendant’s statement on the ground that the letter of consent to the establishment of the cooperative was submitted as “a summary of the new building’s design” and “a summary of the cost of removal and construction of the new building” and “a summary of the cost of removal and construction of the new building” was submitted as public figures. After that, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s statement corresponding thereto was false, and that the Defendant’s statement was not reliable and that the L’s statement was merely false in the specialized statement.

B. According to the following circumstances, the court below rejected the statements of J, K, and L and the defendant made a false testimony in view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the witness F's statements made at the court below.

It is difficult to recognize

The decision is justified and acceptable, and the defendant stated that the F was written in the Flus consent form with H and I.

Even though the defendant ordered F to write mixed, it appears that F alone is difficult for F to work, and F was supported by H and I, but F was aware of the same part.

arrow