beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.
Defendant
A A Fine of 3,00,000 won, Defendant D, E.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact that Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that Defendant A’s perjury at the time of the injury on September 26, 2010, or that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that he had not inflicted any injury on the part of Defendant A, as his memory, and that Defendant A had requested Defendant A to the effect that he had never been aware of the fact that he had not inflicted any injury on the part of Defendant A, such as he was satisd with the iron. As such, Defendant A had no intention to commit a perjury.
In addition, B refused Defendant A’s above testimony. At the time of the testimony of the court, B and Defendant A were in a serious conflict of situation surrounding whether they were trusted to AL wood companies, and thus, B did not have the help but did not make a statement contrary to their memory according to Defendant A’s request. Moreover, the purport of B’s statement is that Defendant A suffered bodily injury by the steel manufacturer, which is different from the contents of Defendant A’s statement requested by Defendant A, and thus, Defendant A cannot be held liable for perjury in relation to B’s testimony.
(B) Defendant A did not have asked C to testify, and Defendant A testified that he was not at the time of the injury on September 26, 2010 that he was not at the time of the injury on September 26, 2010, and thus, Defendant A had no criminal intent to commit a crime, and even according to C’s statement, C cannot be deemed to have consented to the Defendant A’s request for testimony. Even if C’s testimony was given, in light of C’s testimony circumstances, C appears to have testified by using an expression that it was satis for the testimony not by the Defendant’s perjury but rather by the Defendant’s perjury’s perjury teacher, and C ultimately testified that “I would like to have a witness sat once sat,” and the prosecutor testified that “I would have “I would like to sat the same meaning.”