logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.06.21 2019노529
위증
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court held that Defendant A’s testimony cannot be deemed as a false statement contrary to memory on the ground that it is difficult to view that Defendant A’s testimony was a false statement because it was difficult to view that the general meeting or the temporary board of directors, etc. related to the facts charged of the instant case had been duly constituted, on the grounds that it appears to the purport that Defendant A testified to the effect that “the pertinent board of directors did not have a resolution,” or that “the agenda was rejected” as stated in Article 1, 2, and 4 of the List of Crimes, such as the list of crimes.

However, the statement that “the meeting was not a normal meeting even though there was a meeting or a meeting, and the resolution was deemed not a normal resolution,” and the statement that “no one exists” was made, and Defendant A testified as if the complainant made a false statement without distinguishing it, and Defendant A testified as if the complainant D made a false statement. This was contrary to memory.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous.

B. As to the part of the facts charged against Defendant B in relation to the part of the charges against Defendant B, Defendant B continuously opposed to the subsidization of the whole loan, so if the meeting or meeting was held abnormal, it would have been well aware of it. Nevertheless, the above Defendant avoided the answer to the effect that his participation was not memory or the contents of the resolution of the board of directors, the confirmation of the fact of K and H related to paragraph (9) of the above sight table can be concluded reliable, and the fact that the above sight table cannot be concluded to have been not provided with the whole loan funds related to paragraph (10) of the above sight table, but this answer was made by Defendant B against his memory.

arrow