Whether a witness's testimony is a false statement contrary to his memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole testimony in the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than a mere part of the testimony's simple statement. Even if the whole purport of the testimony is consistent with objective facts and it is inconsistent with his memory as to the insignificant part, if it is not against memory, it can not be a perjury (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2864 delivered on March 12, 1996).

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the testimony of this case, which stated that "I, in light of the overall circumstances of the decision regarding the process of negotiations on the sale and purchase of the land of this case, "I know the fact that I would refuse to sell and purchase KRW 3.5 billion from the Chairperson of the House of Ga, who is the applicant for purchase at the time of leap regular, with the presentation of a sale price of KRW 3.5 billion," is consistent with the objective facts that "I would once purchase price is KRW 2.5 billion from the House of Ga, and would raise profits exceeding one billion through construction order," and it is also difficult to view it as a false statement contrary to memory. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the standard of false judgment in perjury, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)