The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as stated in the facts charged, the court below rejected the prosecutor's appeal on this case since the defendant's testimony that "it is owned by the defendant as a witness of this case, and it is nothing more than that held in title in the future since it is nothing more than 10 years ago," the defendant's opinion or evaluation of the right to such real estate is nothing more than that of the defendant's own experience. However, even if the statement was made differently from that of the defendant's opinion or evaluation based on the facts experienced by the defendant, such statement does not constitute a false public offense, and the facts charged of this case are not the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance or the measures for which the defendant acquitted the defendant, but it is nothing more than misunderstanding the facts of this case's experience or evaluation of perjury, and thus, the defendant's testimony should be deemed to have become aware of the facts of this case's testimony, which is a mere experience or evaluation of the facts of perjury, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's testimony should belong to the witness's opinion or evaluation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is deemed sufficient to be judged by a party member based on the records of trial and evidence examined by the court of first instance and the court of first instance, and therefore, it is decided to do so in accordance with Article

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the defendant's testimony is false because the contents of the defendant's testimony are not consistent with the statement made by the non-indicted 1, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant makes a false testimony according to each statement made by the assistant seat and the Cho Young-sing. However, the court of first instance which accepted the defense that the defendant made a false testimony from his fleet, etc., and acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof as to whether the contents of the testimony are different from those of the defendant's prior fleet, etc., and thus, the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have any error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of perjury and by

Therefore, according to the health stand and records, when the first instance court testified that the defendant was aware of the facts charged in this case from another person, as in this case, the testimony should be proved to be perjury that the contents of the testimony are different from those of the other person's prior notification. In this case, we agree with the defendant's measures where there is no proof that the contents of the testimony are different from those of the defendant's prior notification about the ownership relation of the real estate to the defendant. It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant made a statement contrary to memory in this case's whole evidence, including the evidence cited in the theory of lawsuit, as well as all evidence of this case, including the defendant's prior knowledge, unlike the circumstance that the defendant came to know, it is insufficient to establish that the defendant made a statement contrary to memory. Accordingly, the first instance court's judgment that acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged in this case is justifiable, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)