(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.23 2017노1357 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.23 2017노1357

위증등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, as to the perjury in Daejeon District Court 2014 High Order 1482, Daejeon District Court Order 1482, Defendant paid KRW 3.1 billion to Co., Ltd. (former trade name: AI Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “E”) rather than the nature of the purchase price, but also has the nature of the defect in the right to the D building located in Seo-gu Daejeon P (hereinafter “D building”) or criminal agreement. As such, Defendant issued a false statement contrary to memory and perjury.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) As to the charge of perjury in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Gadan 19141 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, who was well aware of the possession relation of D building, made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in this part of the facts charged, and issued perjury.

However, the court below rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of all the following circumstances admitted by the court below by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it is recognized that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory as stated in this part of the charges, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts pointed out by the

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) E.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.07 2019노2388

-광주지방법원 2017.10.25 2016노4183

-대구지방법원 2017.11.24 2017노1255

-대전지방법원 2016.04.01 2015노2369

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.31 2013노999