A. The testimony of the defendant stated in this part of the facts charged by the defendant (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) is nothing more than the issue of the relevant criminal case, but merely a fluoral fact, the statement concerning this part of the facts charged does not constitute perjury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the labor inspector, including the labor inspector who investigated the defendant and D into a substitute for the defendant and D, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's false testimony as stated in this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts

2. Determination

A. Determination of perjury as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is established when a witness who has taken an oath under the law makes a false public testimony. Whether the content of the public testimony concerns the essential facts of the relevant case, or affected the conclusion of the judgment, does not have any relation to the establishment of perjury (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1212, Feb. 23, 1990). The testimony does not relate to the basic matters, but does not affect the establishment of perjury as long as the testimony is a false statement.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Do3069 Decided June 8, 1982). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, C’s qualification requirements are the fact that the person operating a singing room (Evidence No. 32, 33). Meanwhile, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the case on September 23, 2011, Suwon District Court Decision 201Da2732, etc.