logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.03 2013고단6514
위증등
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment Women’s Association.

At around 17:00 on June 18, 2012, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the above court's claim for damages compensation No. 2009Kadan406589, which is located in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul, as a witness, and took an oath.

The Defendant testified as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s agent presented the evidence No. 3-1 (305-dong security room closed notice; (b) and asked “this document is deemed to have been prepared and attached by the witness”; and (c) the Plaintiff’s agent testified as “I not.I.D.”

B. In addition, when the Plaintiff’s agent presents the evidence Nos. 3-2 (Public Notice on Closure of the Guard Office, 305; hereinafter “Public Notice No. 2”), the Defendant’s agent did not prepare the witness.

1. The term “the creation of a witness” is not the case in which the witness was made.

c. Whether the Plaintiff’s agent did not make a witness at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation.

The Defendant asked “I asked the Defendant that the witness was prepared at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, but the Defendant respondeded to the notice and public notice of the broadcast draft prepared by the witness, not the document, but the broadcast draft prepared by the witness.

D. The plaintiff representative presented Eul evidence 13-1 and 4 (Notice of Results of Disposition of the Suspected Case, Notice of Reasons for Non-prosecution) and it appears that the witness prepared the above 305 public notice of closure of the guard room. No summary is required.

The Defendant asked “I”, “At that time, I think I think at that time that the witness was posted with the content broadcasted by the witness, and that the witness was prepared, but I did not have the witness now.

The testimony was made as ‘the testimony'.

However, the defendant prepared a written public notice of the closure of the above 305 Dong Guard room.

In this respect, the Defendant.

arrow