Even if the presiding judge did not notify the Defendants of the right to refuse to testify at the time of examination, in light of the following: (a) the Defendants actively made a false statement even if the Defendants were notified of the right to refuse to testify because they consistently asserted to the same purport as the perjury in the instant case at the time of examination of witness; (b) the Defendants consistently maintained the assertion of the same fact as the perjury up to the appellate court of the fraudulent case; and (c) in particular, in the case of Defendant B, the Defendants stated in the examination process of the Defendant in the lower court that “it would have made the statement even if they were notified of the right to refuse to testify,” the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there was no other substantial obstacle to exercising the right to refuse to testify; and (b) there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds that there was no evidence supporting the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. Except where there is an obvious clerical error in the protocol of trial in which the right to refuse to testify is notified, the legal proceedings at the court date that are written in the protocol of trial shall be proved only by the protocol, and its probative value is absolute that no counter-proof is allowed by data other than the protocol of trial.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6557, Dec. 22, 2005). According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the protocol of examination of the witness against Defendant A in the fraudulent case against Defendant B.