Although the Defendant stated in the above court that the police officer D who was dispatched to the site upon receiving the report of the above case 112 was “C was in excess of E and the F was in excess of E,” the above police officer did not intend to ask him/her for the above case, and stated that the above police officer did not have made the above statement.

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

2. Determination

A. For the purpose of recognizing a witness’s statement as a perjury, there should be proof that the content of the statement is beyond reasonable doubt as to the fact that it goes against the witness’s memory, and if it does not reach that, it cannot be punished for perjury.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). B.

In light of the following circumstances, the statement of the witness examination protocol (third protocol of trial) by the Gwangju District Court 2013 High Court 2013Kadan5763 on the police officer D, which seems directly evidence consistent with the facts charged, is recognized by each legal statement by D, E, and G, namely, the police officer D, who was sent to the site upon the report of 112 at the time, mainly made a detailed statement about the accident from E when he received the report of 112 at the time, and made a witness or witness to secure the personal information and contact of the defendant with the consent of the defendant who had observed the situation at the time of securing a witness or witness, but did not listen to the specific statement from the defendant, and only when D asked the defendant about the accident circumstances, it is difficult to believe this fact.

other documents submitted by a prosecutor.