logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.11.05 2019고정1909
위증
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On September 28, 2016, at the court of Incheon District Court No. 411 located in Michuhol-gu Incheon, Incheon, the Defendant testified that he/she was present at the court of Incheon District Court No. 411 on September 28, 2016 to take witness oath as a witness for the fraud case No. 2016Kadan2476, and that he/she was asked by the prosecutor about when he/she became aware of the fact that he/she was awarded a successful bid for the public auction of Michuhol-gu Incheon, Michuhol-gu, Incheon, and that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she had completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 26, 2009."

However, on November 30, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, even though he/she did not first become aware of the registration of ownership transfer at the prosecutor's office around February 15, 2016, which was the date of the investigation by the public prosecutor's office of the testimony, which was the date of the investigation by the Incheon Central Police Station to confirm that B continues to perform the construction by undergoing an investigation of the witness as to the above case as the petitioner.

2. Determination

A. Whether testimony of a witness in the relevant legal doctrine is a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by comprehensively considering the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances in which the testimony was made, etc., and the meaning of the testimony should be clearly determined after clarifying the meaning of the testimony in question, in cases where the meaning of the testimony in question can be understood as unclear or multi-dimensionally by itself, rather than by the simple Section of the testimony in question.

(Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252 Decided December 27, 2001). Also, witness testimony is judged to be fully observed, and witness who has taken an oath is memory.

arrow