logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
창원지방법원 2013.05.30 2012노2582
위증교사
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in the case of this case on the ground that Defendant A did not have inflicted any injury on Defendant B and C because he did not have inflicted any injury on Defendant B and C, but did not have instigated Defendant B and C with any perjury. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence on August 1, 200; Defendant B: fine of KRW 500,000; and Defendant C: fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the court below and the trial court may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A had caused Defendant B and C to make a false statement contrary to memory, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by Defendant A, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

3. It is recognized that the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing was made by Defendant B, and C without any consideration upon Defendant A’s request.

However, Defendant A, after the confession of each of the crimes of this case in the court below, cannot be deemed to seriously reflect his mistake by denying each of the crimes of this case again, etc., Defendant A had been punished several times due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., Defendant B had the record of being punished several times of fines due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and Defendant C has the record of being punished as suspension of execution and fine.