A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant testified that (i) the commander’s written opinion on D (hereinafter “the commander’s written opinion”) was clearly memoryed and testified to know about the process of preparation; (ii) the signature written in the commander’s written opinion was not a signature; and (iii) the Defendant explicitly expressed that the commander’s written opinion was forged, the lower court did not conclude that the Defendant was written by the Defendant differently from the intent of the Defendant’s testimony, even though the Defendant issued a perjury to the effect that it was forged.

B. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the charge of perjury is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case was observed from February 1998 to November 27, 1998 by observe D who was admitted to the above new illness education unit C as a new illness on November 27, 1998, and then prepared a commander’s opinion as to D. And immediately after having been admitted to the new illness education unit, D was found to have been detained by the defendant who was the captain, and was found to be above the spirit of the interview, and was hospitalized to the hospital.

However, at around 14:00 on July 18, 2013, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in the Gwangju High Court located as a witness of the Gwangju High Court 2013Nu412, the Gwangju High Court, a compliance officer of the Dong-gu, Gwangju High Court, and then asked the Plaintiff’s legal representative before the trial court in the foregoing case, “it is essential that the above commander’s written opinion should be prepared by the witness at the time of the trial.” However, the Defendant’s signature is similar to the witness’s signature, but is similar to the witness’s signature.