logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.11.03 2016고단2748
위증
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, the execution of imprisonment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from around 2005 to June 30, 2013, served as the president, vice-president, etc. of H H H who owns and manages the G market and was in charge of the development of the G market and the sale of the leases.

The Defendant, in Seoul Jongno-gu G market B, 4022, 4023, the G market B, and 4023, in Seoul Jongno-gu, maintained a close gap with K, and offered K for convenience in purchasing the right to lease from G market stores. On December 5, 2006, K received deposit necessary for acquiring the right to lease from L to L to a new store site and KRW 1 billion for street funds, etc. on November 21, 2013, the Defendant was prosecuted and tried to the Seoul Central District Court for fraud and breach of trust, etc.

(Seoul Central District Court 2013Gohap1265).K claimed that the defendant paid the money from L in the course of the investigation and trial of the case with deposit money and rain funds necessary to lease the commercial building that is newly constructed in the parking lot site, and the defendant was present as a witness to prove the fact.

On February 14:00 on February 27, 2014, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraud case against K at the Seoul Central District Court Office No. 425, Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court Office No. 425, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and testified as follows:

(A) On May 23, 2006, the defense counsel asked the Defendant (K) to “A fact that the Defendant (K) would pay the amount of KRW 200 million to N on May 23, 2006, because the witness would pay the amount of KRW 200 million to N on May 23, 2006.” On the other hand, the defense counsel asked the Defendant “A fact that the Defendant (K) would have paid the amount of KRW 200 million to N on the ground that the O is under the supervision of the K, K, P, and low level of money, and that it would not be the investment amount, and it would not be the direction that the net would be the State.”

However, the defendant's investment is that N, K, P, and defendant operate the PC together, and the defendant's investment is made.

arrow