logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.08.22 2019노142
무고
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts, although it did not recognize the Defendant’s intention of false accusation, since the gist of the grounds for appeal did not recognize the fact reported by the Defendant.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same as in the trial, and the court below recognized the facts charged of the instant case that the Defendant filed a false complaint against D, even though he knew of the fact that the instant medical certificate was not altered, based on the circumstances in its judgment.

In light of the following circumstances known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment of the court below.

① As a medical certificate issued by the F Hospital G on December 14, 2015 with respect to the network C, D submitted a medical certificate (hereinafter “the instant medical certificate”) with the statement “Crerereuicor psychhoc herherher.” (hereinafter “the instant report”) to the Liberian Roym Port Port (hereinafter “the instant medical certificate”).

However, on December 14, 2015, F confirmed that G issued the instant medical certificate on the request for cooperation in the investigation of the F Hospital by the investigative agency, and sent the same medical certificate to the investigative agency. The instant medical certificate is in compliance with the medical certificate issued by G and is not modified by D.

② On May 9, 2016, the Defendant and the Defendant’s birth Ma received a copy of the instant diagnosis from an attorney in the U.S. who was sent e-mail by the Defendant, M, and her husband (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) at an investigative agency and court, and confirmed whether the alteration was made. On the other hand, G did not issue the instant diagnosis with the entry thereof, and confirmed the alteration of the instant diagnosis.

arrow