logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.13 2016고단1449
무고
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 18, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for larceny and fraud in the Daegu District Court and racing support, and on January 31, 2014, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence in the port prison.

Around January 18, 2016, the Defendant was informed of the fact that D, a person in charge of receipt and reservation of the public service center meeting of the Daegu Suwon-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, and that D, a person in charge of receipt and reservation of the public service center meetings of the public service center of the Daegu-gu, was F, and F, would visit the Defendant at around 11:00 on January 20, 2016. However, D, a public official, was not subject to criminal punishment for the purpose of providing the Defendant’s family member with personal information to D, a person who was a person in charge of receipt and reservation of the public service center of the public service center of the Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, and the Defendant, a person in charge of receipt of the public service center of the public prosecutor’s office of the public prosecutor’s office, and the fact that D, a person in charge of receipt and reservation, made the above personal information of the Defendant at the public prosecutor’s office of Grade 1, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, G and D;

1. The prosecutor's statement against the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning E and D;

1. A complaint and a petition;

1. Before the judgment: Criminal records, personal identification and confinement status of each person, and his/her defense counsel, are true that DNA leaked personal information, and even if not, the defendant asserts that he/she did not have any perception or purpose since there are sufficient grounds to think as such.

However, this Court, including consistent statements of witnesses D, E, and G.

arrow