logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.17 2019고단314
위증
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Basic Facts] At around 23:50 on January 17, 2018, Defendant B: (a) discovered that Defendant A was in the dwelling of Defendant B, one of his own domestic women under the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Cloan D; and (b) threatened Defendant B, who was hiding himself in a toilet where he was damaged, with the network E, that he was sworn, and who was hiding in a toilet where he was damaged, the network of this case that threatened Defendant B, “ soon ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba.” was concealed in Defendant B’s toilet (three floors) and died by opening a window and leaving.

Defendant A was subject to an investigation by an investigative agency in relation to the case, and Defendant A made several statements at the police investigation immediately after the instant case that Defendant B had expressed to the deceased E that it would have a threat. However, Defendant B did not reverse the subsequent statement and the subsequent prosecutorial investigation up to the time of the prosecution investigation, and Defendant B maintained the statement consistently reversed that there was no fact corresponding to Defendant B and the statement, and Defendant B rejected Defendant B’s suspicion with the same purport.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On November 5, 2018, Defendant B told the said Party A to the effect that “In today’s testimony, I dar the testimony as he was investigated by an investigative agency” by walking the phone from the said Party in the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and had the said Party present himself as a witness of the Defendant’s intimidation case, and had the Defendant present himself at the Defendant’s meeting as a witness of the Defendant’s intimidation, and had the Defendant feel to the effect that he did not have a fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor, with respect to the said case.”

arrow