logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.24 2015고단1000
사기등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Around 14:00 on April 7, 2015, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the fraud case against Defendant C at the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2, Seoul Eastern District Court No. 404, the Seoul Eastern District Court held an oath.

In testimony after taking an oath as above, the defendant stated that "D was introduced, and it is not possible to introduce any institution," and the prosecutor stated that "D was asked at the place where E and Defendant C met," and the prosecutor asked "D was asked at the place where the E and Defendant C met," and then asked "D was introduced to C, and whether the witness was not at all involved in the sales contract of the building site of this case."

However, on June 8, 2009, the Defendant introduced E, a partner of the club, to C, and recommended E to purchase the panel house, such as “if you purchase the group house from C, it comes out of the commercial building or apartment sales right of the above group city.” In addition, on June 8, 2009, the Defendant directly transferred eight million won in relation to the group house purchased from C from the victim E.

Accordingly, the defendant gave false testimony contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including the E and C respective statements);

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Copies of each protocol of examination of the witness against E, D, and the defendant in this Court 2014 High Court Order 3383;

1. Each copy of a receipt, deposit certificate, and vicarious administrative execution warrant, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant has testified truely in accordance with his memory, but the evidence in the ruling and its corresponding information can be known.

arrow