A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant acknowledged that E had directly observed the situation in which E was removed from D, as the rear side of the bus, and further, the part of the defendant's testimony that "E testified to the effect that it was not removed from D," which "E testified to the effect that it was not removed from D," which was acquitted by the court below, of the defendant's testimony, requested D to provide multiple assistance.

‘The purpose of ' is to emphasize the part itself, and it is not proper to consider it as the object of judgment on whether perjury is established.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on perjury or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 300,00,000 imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below's judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that D was exposed to E by force from F to a large sound, and that E was removed from D by inducing F by moving F to the back page. However, in perjury, a false public testimony refers to a statement contrary to witness memory, and its falsity is determined based on the experience of subjective witness's perception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do48, Mar. 27, 1984). In order to determine that the defendant's statement on the above facts constitutes perjury, it should be acknowledged that the defendant had witness the above circumstances first.

However, G was present as a witness of the perjury case and himself was present at that time on the front left of the opposite direction of driver's seat, and F was seated on the front left of the direction of the passage.