(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.08.13 2014노257 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.08.13 2014노257

위증교사

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of the fact that Defendant A did not have made a false testimony to E, and Defendant B did not deliver the horses of the above A to E who is the spouse, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of each perjury and the charges of aiding and abetting the perjury. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of two million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendants asserted that the determination of mistake of facts by the Defendants is identical to this part of the grounds for appeal even in the court below.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the court below's decision based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in relation to the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion, and acknowledged the facts as stated in the court below's decision, i.e., the circumstances revealed by the facts and records of the recognition, and the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul met several times before the perjury, and the defendant Eul made the statement to the Eul that the amount paid by the defendant Eul as a bid deposit to Eul in the course of meeting with the Eul should be testified as requested by the defendant Eul, and the defendant Eul testified to the defendant Eul as to the amount paid by the defendant Eul as a bid deposit; and

5. Although the sum totaling KRW 54.6 million was argued to be the amount related to the above lawsuit for damages, considering the following factors: (a) E’s perjury is a statement consistent with the aforementioned argument of Defendant A; (b) Defendant A agreed with E after perjury; (c) the sentence was significantly mitigated in the appellate trial of E’s criminal trial; and (d) E recognized the fact of perjury in the criminal trial of his/her perjury case; and (c) the conviction became final and conclusive, it was determined that Defendant A can be found to have committed perjury and the crime of aiding and abetting perjury committed against Defendant B.

2. The court below duly adopted the facts and circumstances stated in the above decision of the court below.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.10 2016노2754

-청주지방법원 2017.08.17 2016고단1055

-서울남부지방법원 2007.6.20.선고 2007노104 판결

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.01.15 2015고단864

-창원지방법원 2016.04.20 2015노2308