Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Since the Defendant stated that he was directly experienced the fact that he was beyond the hives of the hives of the hives and the background leading up to the injury of D, there is no objective or subjective false statement.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of perjury as to the assertion of mistake of facts is established when a witness who has taken an oath under an Act makes a false public testimony. The issue of whether the content of the perjury concerns the facts of the relevant case or affects the conclusion of the judgment is irrelevant to the establishment of perjury.

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do1212 delivered on February 23, 1990). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the court below is justified in holding that the defendant, who was aware of the situation at the time, made a false statement contrary to his memory that "the defendant, who was aware of the situation at that time, had experienced, was able to sufficiently recognize the fact that he had received the hacker column or the hacker column", and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts, such as the defendant's assertion.

However, among the facts charged in the instant case, the part that “the 쇠 pole was cement sponsed at the bottom of the pole to spherize the pent, so the elderly witness could not be extracted,” or the part that “the 쇠 pole had no choice but to go beyond a ceiling due to cement sphersphers,” submitted by the prosecutor alone, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory (in the case of injury caused by negligence against the final and conclusive Defendant, even in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Defendant 3 was sealed in his hand.”