(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.17 2015노690 | 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) 대전지방법원 2015.09.17 2015노690

위증등

Text

Defendant

All the appeals filed by the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) concluded that the victim D, who is the lessee of Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant store”) No. 202 (hereinafter “instant store”), entered the instant store by having the victim enter the said store after having entered the said store on April 9, 2012, that the F, which first entered in the said store, had the tap water recovered, and there was no intention to intrude the instant store against the victim D’s will.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts-finding trial, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant appeared at the court of Daejeon District Court No. 318, Sept. 2, 2013 to take an oath as a witness of obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, No. 2013 high-level 1095, which was the same court as F with respect to Sept. 2, 2013, and gave a false statement contrary to his memory as stated in this part of the facts charged. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (the grace of sentence (the fine of KRW 300,00) is too un

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, knew that there was a dispute between F and D arising from the settlement of lease deposit (Evidence No. 312 of the evidence record), such as hearing that “five million won (five million won)” was the victim D and F and the victim D when F were aware of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., the Defendant was aware of the fact that F had not informed F of the identity of the key and digital number of the instant store (Evidence No. 313, 314 of the evidence record), and that D obtained the digital number of the instant store installed from F and that “the victim did not think that D received the digital number of the instant store installed from F and received the victim D value.”

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.10.27 2016가단20043

-대구지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가단4539

-대구지방법원 2013.02.08 2012노3722

-수원지방법원 2018.03.27 2017나57257

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단5323775