In the first instance court, the case where the investigative agency and the court adopted one of the statements contrary to the co-defendants' statement and declared a conviction, and explained the decision process on the selection of evidence in the reasons for the judgment

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years.

Among detention days before sentencing, 175 days for accused 1, and 135 days for accused 2, shall be included in each penalty.

1. Defendant 1

A. At around 14:00 on June 7, 1990, at the court of this court, the defendant appeared and testified after taking an oath against the victim non-indicted 1 as witness of this court No. 424, the court of this court. The defendant did not witness the above non-indicted 1's behavior; the defendant was arrested and detained for the above defendant 2; the defendant was issued a medical certificate due to the above violence at his discretion; the non-indicted 2 sent the defendant's complaint to the Mapo Police Station; the defendant's defendant's mother sent the above defendant's reply voluntarily from the above defendant 2; the court of this court's conviction against the above non-indicted 1; the defendant's testimony against the above defendant's violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act; the defendant's testimony cannot be reversed without the defendant's testimony because it was contrary to the above defendant 2's testimony or testimony.

B. On June 20, 14:00 of the same year, when the defendant appeared at the same place as a witness for the above non-indicted 1 and testified after taking an oath, the above defendant 2 took place as witness for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act against the non-indicted 1, and forced the defendant to make a statement as witness for the crime of violation of the above defendant 2, the above defendant 2 took possession of the defendant, deserted the defendant at the place where the defendant was kidnapped, abandoned the defendant, and the above defendant 2 was arrested at Manabom on April 27, 198, and the above non-indicted 2 took delivery of the defendant's complaint against the above defendant 2 at the Magana Police Station, and the defendant's testimony was not made at the time of his testimony on August 23, 198, and the defendant's testimony was not made at the time when the above non-indicted 1's wife and the defendant's testimony was made at the time of the above defendant 2's testimony.

2. Defendant 2

A. On June 14, 1990, at the top of the defendant 1's house located in Goyang-dong, Goyang-si (Saeak omitted), the above defendant 1 appeared to have been present at the defendant 1, who was present at the above defendant 1, and the defendant 1 testified to the defendant that he had been present before the defendant, such as false testimony, if he testified to the defendant that he had been present before the defendant, the above defendant 1 had the witness present at the court No. 424 of this court about June 14:00 and testified that the above facts were false, and the witness was present at the witness of the defendant case and testified that "the defendant was present at the defendant 2 before his conscience." The defendant's testimony was delivered to the defendant 2, who had the above witness present at the defendant's conscience, without being able to be summoned from the above Kim Jong-dong, and was issued with a false testimony to the defendant 2, which was contrary to the above defendant 2's testimony.

B. Around June of the same year, at the same place as above, the above defendant 1 would be paid for a sufficient amount of compensation. Accordingly, the testimony from the defendant, such as "the defendant did not have been captured or transported," and the defendant's testimony was requested from the non-indicted 1 to make a statement as the defendant's time," and the above defendant 1 would be aware that the above facts were false, and the witness was present at the same court around June 20 of the same year and testified after being sworn as a witness of the above case at around 14:00 of the same year. There was no fact that the defendant was caught or caught. There was no fact that the above non-indicted 2 received the complaint from the defendant 2 to the Mapo Police Station. The fact that the defendant was threatened by the defendant's perjury. The defendant did not talk about the above case of the defendant's wife on July 7, 198 or the above case of the defendant, and the defendant did not have to bear any false evidence from the above defendant 2."

1. Statement that conforms to the facts stated in this Court by Defendant 1

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in this Court by the witness Nonindicted 1, 2, and the teary.

1. The first and second statements made by the prosecutor on the defendant 1, the original and second statements made by the prosecutor on the interrogation of suspect suspect, and each statement made by the defendant 1, each of the original statements made by the defendant 2 on the facts indicated in each judgment

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the judgment among the statement statement made by the prosecutor with Nonindicted 1

1. On the other hand, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 appear to have been compelled to appear before the court of the first instance on the day of the above 8th trial records, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 appear to have been compelled to appear in the court of the first instance on the day of the above 8th trial records (the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 did not appear in the court of the first instance on the day of the above 8th trial records, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 appear to have appeared to be true on several occasions, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 appeared to have been compelled to appear in the court of the first instance on the day of the above 8th trial records, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 appear to have been compelled to appear in the court of the first instance on the day of the above 9th trial records, and thus, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 appear to have been compelled to appear in the court of the first instance on the same day on the day of the above 1st trial records.

Defendant 1: Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor), the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 (the aggravation of punishment as provided for in Article 1-b of the Criminal Act) and Article 57

Defendant 2: Articles 152(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor), the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 (the aggravation of punishment with prison labor as provided for in Article 2(b) of the Criminal Act) and Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judges Kim Jong-hee