It is reasonable to view that the fact that E was appointed as the representative director of B around November 2019 and actually operated B had been recognized by the court over several times, and that the defendant also had been aware of the above fact as a person who directly exceeded the B management right.

Therefore, the testimony of the defendant in the facts charged constitutes a false statement contrary to memory.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. Whether a witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the witness's testimony. If the meaning of the testimony is unclear or multi-dimensionally understandable, the meaning of the testimony should be determined clearly 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 during which the testimony was made, etc.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7487, Feb. 10, 2006).

The main content of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant, although he was well aware of the fact that he actually operated B, made a false statement.

According to the records, the defendant was present at the prosecutor's office as witness of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against E on May 20, 2010 and stated that "E was in operation B from the time when F became the largest shareholder, and became the representative director around November 12, 2019."