Defendant 1 among the interrogations mentioned above, “I am arbly open to the following:

In the question of “A witness initially opened the door “D (after opening the door, E; hereinafter “D”) this F (G after opening the door, hereinafter “F”).” In this case, the question of “D is so long as it is difficult to know exactly,” “I think that D would have opened the door more than 40 minutes.”

The aforementioned counsel stated as " and there is a possibility that he/she suffered pictures more likely to incur pictures by adding D more than D due to his/her act, even if he/she suffered pictures at that time."

I may see the question "Isl't we can do so."

The Defendant, such as the statement “, etc., issued F F’s mother D, before the Defendant’s opening of the heat to F, and C opened F and left F for a long time in the experience room. The testimony was made to the effect that C had a possibility of suffering from images by releting D again after he opened F.

However, the Defendant did not know whether the F has long been in the experience room after C had opened the F, and D did not use the heat that the Defendant and C had been in the state of F before opening the F, and there was no fact that D used the heat from the heat that the Defendant and C had been in the state of F.

The defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

2. Determination

A. Whether the testimony of a witness in perjury constitutes a false statement contrary to memory should be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the examination procedure in question as a whole, not by seeking a simple part of the testimony.