A. The following facts acknowledged based on the relevant evidence are limited and interpreted as follows: ① at the time of examination of the examination of the case for cancellation of the council resolution by the Gwangju District Court 2013Gahap9156 (hereinafter “the instant civil lawsuit”); ② the Defendant’s agent’s answer to the effect that “the Defendant did not destroy microphones within 70 minutes of minor time” without any restriction; ② the Plaintiff’s answer to the effect that “the Defendant was “the Defendant did not destroy microphones within 70 minutes of minor time”; ② the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff) made the Defendant go through “the Defendant’s microslirs” after the Defendant’s transmission of micros, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant would not memory the microslirs itself. In order to support the Defendant’s assertion that there is no procedural defect in the H agricultural cooperative (the Defendant) in the instant civil lawsuit; ③ even if the Defendant received treatment due to damage, the Defendant did not have any brain strokenn’s memory in the instant civil lawsuit, the Defendant’s testimony itself cannot be found to be unlawful.

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

2. Determination

A. On June 18, 2014, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 14:30, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness in the Gwangju District Court No. 103, the Gwangju Dong-dong, Gwangju District Court No. 103; (b) the Plaintiff No. 2013Gahap9156, the Plaintiff Company No. 20156, which filed against Defendant D for the cancellation of the board of representatives’ resolution; and (c) testified that the Plaintiff’s agent “no witness has lost the microde inside the meeting place.”

However, the defendant is above.