본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원 2018.11.01 2018노5081

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


The Defendant misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal as to the facts charged by E, like in January 19, 2016, shared with his/her employees, as he/she was found to have been on the same day.

Even though there was no false statement contrary to memory because it was memory, the court below, solely on the part of a deadly confluence alone, presented perjury by the defendant without any evidence.

The decision was concluded.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

It is unfair that the sentence of the court below (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.


If the testimony stated after taking an oath of a legal doctrine related to mistake of fact was made that he/she was well aware of the fact of his/her testimony while he/she was well aware of the fact of his/her testimony, perjury is established since he/she was a statement contrary to his/her memory (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do57, Sept. 9, 1986). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant testified that he/she was not well aware of the indecent act committed by E at least on January 19, 2016, and was well aware of the indecent act committed by E.

Since the testimony is a statement contrary to memory, perjury is established against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

Around July 2011, the Defendant joined G and served until now as the site warden on January 2016. In the first instance trial on the compulsory indecent act case of E, the representative of the company, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation of facts two times favorable to E. In the first instance trial on two occasions. When E was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for three months in the first instance trial on September 28, 2017 and was detained in the court, there is motive for the Defendant to make a false statement for E, such as attending the court as a witness, for E in the trial on September 28, 2017.

In the above appellate court, the defendant was drinking together with the office employees, and thus, on the day of forced indecent acts, the defendant was also engaged in the same day.