The defendant's answer from E's attorney to the purport that "I would have been able to obtain a building permit sufficiently due to the circumstances when the defendant first left the court," is reasonable to determine it as false testimony by interpreting that there was no defect in all parts related to the building permit. However, the court below erred by unreasonably interpreting the above testimony to the effect that there was no defect in the business itself which the defendant was in charge of the defendant under the Building Act.

Judgment

Whether a witness’s testimony is false or false in contravention of memory shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the witness’s testimony. Where the meaning of the testimony is unclear or multi-dimensionally understood in itself, the meaning of the testimony shall be determined clearly after clarifying the meaning of the testimony in light of the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances in which the testimony was made, etc.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s reasoning of innocence and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below pursuant to the aforementioned legal principles is just in holding that the defendant’s testimony is not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant’s testimony is false, and there is no other evidence to prove it, and the appellate court did not submit new evidence to prove the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.