3. The credibility of the statement is recognized by the statement to the effect that the witness G and H consistently got out of drinking to F; 4. The Defendants also made the statement to the effect that E was at the time.

In light of the statements, etc. of police officers I in charge of making a statement, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts that E made F at the time, that G used F and E fighting, and that the Defendants who appeared to have made a false statement contrary to memory, and even though they made a false statement contrary to memory, the court below acquitted them of this fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendants consistently denied the charge of perjury from the investigative agency to the trial of the party. As to the facts charged, the lower court’s determination is consistent with the following facts: (a) in the relevant case (Tgu District Court 2015, 2590, hereinafter referred to as “E”) that “E had inflicted bodily injury upon the victim’s face due to the victim’s head at home and by hand while taking a bath with the victim F,” the Defendants convicted E of the facts charged; (b) but the appellate court (Tgu District Court 2016No 4073) did not exclude the possibility that the victim F, who had a dispute over E and the issue of construction cost, face the victim’s face at his own face; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, lack of evidence to acknowledge that E would have inflicted bodily injury upon the victim’s face; and (d) the Prosecutor’s testimony to this case was reversed on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise; and (e) the Prosecutor’s testimony to the E-1718.7.7.7.