Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the executive director of D Co., Ltd. (formerly: E Co., Ltd.). On August 18, 201, at the Patent Court located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, about 69:0, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the registration invalidation case No. 201No. 491 (Special) between Plaintiff F Co., Ltd and Defendant D Co., Ltd. (Special) and testified following the testimony at the patent court located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The above documents were attached to the original contract even if the contract was not delivered in advance to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on August 1, 1995, at the time of the conclusion of the contract and the pressure reproduction contract between H and E Co., Ltd.

3. The judgment of the court below

A. Whether a witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not 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. If the meaning of the testimony is unclear or multi-dimensionally understandable, the meaning of the testimony should be determined clearly after considering 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 during which the testimony was made, etc.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2864, Mar. 12, 1996; 2001Do5252, Dec. 27, 2001).

However, among the documentary evidence of this case.