위증
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On June 18, 2014, the Defendant testified that, at the court of Gwangju District Court No. 103 located in Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness with respect to the claim for cancellation of the board of representatives’ resolution filed by the Plaintiff C against Defendant D, and that, on the physical records of the Plaintiff’s agent’s “the witness shall not have lost the microphone inside the meeting place”, the Defendant testified that “I shall not have lost the microphone inside the meeting place.”
However, the defendant had lost all of the microphones in front C at the meeting of the board of representatives at the above temporary border.
Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.
2. Determination
A. On the other hand, whether a witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory should be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant interrogation procedure as a whole, not by the simple Section of the witness's testimony. If the meaning of the testimony in question is unclear or it can be understood differently, the meaning of the testimony in question should be clearly determined after considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances surrounding the testimony in question, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252, Dec. 27, 2001). B.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant first proceeded in the examination of the Defendant’s agent from around 10:30 on August 26, 2013, and first explained the Plaintiff’s reason and reason for expulsion, and then given the Plaintiff an opportunity to vindicate up to 70 minutes.
(b) Even though the Plaintiff gave an opportunity to explain about about 70 minutes to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff does not vindicate the Plaintiff’s grounds for expulsion and does not follow the procedural issues of the notification regarding the instant resolution.