1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant appeared and took an oath on January 10, 2019 as a witness of the case in the 21st Doncheon Branch of the Gwangju District Court's Doncheon Branch of the 21st Doncheon District Court's Doncheon Branch of the 201st Doncheon Branch of the 2019, and testified to the effect that "I would like to know exactly because the audit duties were conducted at the planning office at that time because I would like to have been in the planning office at that time, I would like to know what kind of audit and inspection would have been commenced because I would like to have been audit and inspection," and that "I would like to have "I would not know about what kind of audit and inspection was not a member of the audit team," and that "I would like to know about what kind of testimony it would have occurred at the school of the witness," and that I would like to be "I would like to have no person in charge of the audit and inspection."

However, due to the embezzlement of laboratory training expenses, the defendant was well aware of the fact that the Board of Review, the Disciplinary Committee, and the board of directors have seen a society.

Ultimately, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

2. Determination

A. When the testimony of a witness in perjury is based on a false statement contrary to memory in the relevant legal doctrine, the whole of the testimony during the relevant interrogation procedure should be identified as one of the whole instead of being biased to the simple composition of the testimony, and the meaning of the testimony is unclear or unclear in itself.