beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant testified with the body of D, he was aware that the body of D had been written by the Defendant due to the lack of the screen presented in the court due to an euthanasia from urology caused by urology, there is no intention to perjury for the Defendant.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Whether a witness's testimony is false or false in relation to a mistake of fact should be determined by comprehensively considering the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances in which the testimony was made, etc., and the meaning of the testimony should be clearly determined after clarifying the meaning of the testimony in question, in a case where the meaning of the testimony in question is unclear or diverse.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252 delivered on December 27, 2001). According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of original judgment, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant intentionally made a false statement contrary to memory, as stated in its holding, and such false statement is not deemed due to the collapse of the purpose of the examination or the mistake of the purport of the examination. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.
First, on December 8, 2015, the Defendant appeared as a witness in the court of Seoul Northern District Court 508, and made a statement related to the case, which was made by Defendant D’s attorney, including the main question of Defendant D’s attorney, the cross-examination of Plaintiff E’s attorney, and the ex officio supplementary examination by the presiding judge, and made a statement to the effect that the Defendant’s name was certain, excluding private persons, and the Defendant appears to be insufficient.