The Defendant responded from the prosecutor that “I would like to answer the question “(D) that I would not see ‘I would like to see why you will see??’” The Defendant responded from the prosecutor that “I would like to answer the question “I would like to see.......,” and again, the Prosecutor asked all people in the neighborhood to “I would like to see why I would see the victim(D) ‘I would see why she would have her chest or sexual indecent act.’ However, the Defendant responded to the question “I would see..........”

However, around 20:15 on May 26, 2014, the Defendant was at the F Superintendent of the Office of Education’s election campaign office No. 104 of the Busan Dongdong-gu E building No. 104, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that D was at least three times, and D was at the same time, “whether or not he was d'.”

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently stated that the Defendant did not make a false statement in a prosecuted case, such as the Busan District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 8350, Busan High Court Decision 8350, supra, from the investigative agency to the court.

B. Perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath under the law makes a statement contrary to his/her memory, and the testimony does not fit the objective fact, and the testimony cannot be readily concluded as perjury immediately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do192 delivered on August 23, 1996, etc.). Also, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor’s burden of proving the facts charged, and the acknowledgement of guilt ought to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so that such evidence may be proven.