The Defendant testified to the presiding judge C of the above court to the effect that “Plaintiff D had a fact that he was satisfing in a place where the witness was satisfe at the bar.”

However, the fact that D purchased on December 4, 2001 the area of 3,989 square meters prior to the Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and owned it for not less than eight years, and seven neighboring residents, including the defendant, were permitted to cultivate crops, but D did not directly cultivate the said farmland.

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

2. Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by comprehensively identifying the whole of the testimony during the examination procedure concerned rather than by the simple Section of the testimony. If the meaning of the testimony is unclear or multi-dimensionally understandable, the meaning of the testimony should be clearly determined 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.

(1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant testified as stated in the facts charged and that the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

(1) The defendant is Busan District Court 201Guhap4984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Case").