beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the charge of this case, although the Defendant had instigated perjury to B, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. On May 29, 2015, at around 16:00 on May 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Defendant was a victim of G’s house located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F; and (b) stated that, around 14:00 on June 25, 2015, the Incheon District Court 3rd floor corridor located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City District Court’s educational-interest-dong, the Defendant appeared as the victim, “at the time of testimony, there is a difference between the inside and outside of the facility when testimony was made”; and (c) caused
The defendant had the above Eul give testimony to the above purport in the court No. 322 of the Incheon District Court on the same day, and instigated the perjury.
B. The lower court and the lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant and B received a summary order of KRW 1 million and KRW 300,000 as a result of each injury and assault charges on December 30, 2014 in relation to the dispute over August 19, 2014, and the Defendant requested a formal trial to the effect that “the Defendant cannot recognize the injury” was issued as a witness of the Defendant’s injury case on June 25, 2015, and the Defendant was present at the investigative agency as a witness of the Defendant’s injury case on June 25, 2015.
However, the facts stated to the effect that “the victim only threatened with Handphones and did not have any fact,” and they reversed the statement made by the investigative agency. ② As to the grounds for the reversal of the above statement, B consistently from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, the Defendant appeared to have been tried by the Defendant’s mother against G in a fraudulent case against G, and then went to the house of G on May 29, 2015, and the Defendant “if the Defendant was present at around June 25, 2015, it would cause the withdrawal of the accusation of the injury case to be caused,” and even on the day when the Defendant appeared as a witness of the injury case.