The Defendant testified at the risk of “influence” to the question of “Abrupted the fact that the construction permit was issued to C by the authoritative interpretation that it is possible to grant a building permit without the consent of use in the South Sea” of the aforementioned defense counsel.

However, the defendant had already been aware of the above facts by requesting information disclosure to the South Sea Office.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261 Decided November 10, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). Meanwhile, since perjury is established by a witness who has taken an oath under law to make a statement contrary to his/her memory, his/her testimony is not consistent with objective facts, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the testimony is a perjury immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do80, Dec. 13, 198). Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his/her memory is not a mere part of his/her testimony, but a whole testimony during the relevant interrogation procedure should be identified and determined by understanding the witness as a whole, and where the meaning of testimony is unclear or understood in itself