[위증][공1993.1.15.(936),312]
Where a witness who has taken an oath makes a false representation contrary to memory on the same date, the number of crimes of perjury (=general1)
Where a witness who has taken an oath one time with respect to a case conducts a false perjury contrary to memory with respect to various facts on the same date, this constitutes a single perjury by continuing to conduct a false perjury by one criminal intent, and it does not constitute several perjury by each statement.
Articles 152(1) and 37 of the Criminal Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al.
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No1877 delivered on January 17, 1992
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.
As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel
1. The court below's finding the defendant's perjury based on the timely evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance is just and there is no error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit.
2. Where a witness who has taken an oath once in one case makes a false testimony contrary to memory as to various facts on the same date, this shall be deemed to constitute one perjury by continuing to make a false testimony by one criminal intent, and it does not constitute several perjury by each statement (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1212, Feb. 23, 1990). The lower court, on the premise that the Defendant took an oath as a witness in the court of the Seoul Criminal District Court 87Da5402, the Defendant made several statements about the case, and then took an oath as a witness in the court of the above defendant case against Nonindicted 1, 1990, the Defendant shall be deemed to constitute a separate perjury for each statement, and the Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1,50,000 won within the scope of the term of punishment where concurrent crimes are deemed to be concurrent crimes. It is reasonable for the lower court to discuss this point.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.