According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant taken an oath as a witness of the case of claiming the return of the deposit for the lease deposit between the plaintiff 1, 9643, the defendant's wife, and the non-indicted 1 or his family member, although he did not have occupied the house of the new Chuncheon, the plaintiff found the defendant guilty of violating his memory on December 25, 1981 by making a false statement against the defendant's wife's body located in the two rooms of the defendant's possession on December 25, 1981.

However, the statement of the copy of the witness examination protocol is merely the evidence of the facts of the defendant's testimony, and the statement at the court of the first instance and the prosecutor's office of the highest number is merely the fact that the defendant borrowed five million won from the doorer and failed to repay it due to the introduction in the order of the defect, and it is not a material to determine whether the defendant's testimony was occupied by the non-indicted 1 at the seat of the new Chuncheon. The statement at the prosecutor's office of the king does not have a seal on the disturbance of the head of the Ban at the time of the moving-in report on the resident registration as the house of the new Chuncheon, and it is evident that there is no material to determine whether the defendant's testimony was occupied by the non-indicted 1 at the house of the new Chuncheon. Accordingly, all of the above evidence are not evidence to conclude that the defendant's testimony was a false statement contrary to memory. Ultimately, the court below concluded that the defendant's testimony was false

However, according to the records, it is hard to find out that the order of her name borrowed money directly from Non-Indicted 1, the wife of the defendant, and whether the lease contract of this case, which was offered as a security for repayment of loan obligation, was forged or not with non-Indicted 1, and the interests conflict with Non-Indicted 1, and as long as the interests conflict with non-Indicted 1, the credibility of the statement is unclear, and according to the copy of the examination report of the defendant in the Seoul Criminal Court of Justice 86Kadan8989, which he testified as non-Indicted 2, the defendant's her name was recorded in the problematic room and it was only impossible to do so due to the scambling of the defendant's her name (371 pages of the investigation record) and the statement of non-Indicted 1, 1981, 3 months from the end of the last day of December 198, 19, the defendant's new statement that he had occupied the defendant's 1's book and the statement that the defendant's new statement had been used 10 days prior to her.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)