The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the reasons for appeal, the fact that the defendant was a witness of the F's chest, despite the existence of the fact that the defendant was a citizen of F's chest, is sufficiently recognized by making a false statement to the effect that the defendant was present as a witness of the injury incident against F and did not smuggling F's chest.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

가. 원심의 판단 원심은 그 채택 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정들, ① F는 피고인이 자신의 가슴을 밀었음에도 법정에서 허위 진술을 하였다는 취지로 고소하였으나, F는 자신이 피고인에게 상해를 가하였다는 혐의로 경찰조사를 받으면서 ‘ 피고인이 자신을 손으로 미는 시늉을 했는데, 실제 피고인의 손이 자신의 배나 가슴에 닿았는지 모르겠다.

“........ was at the present site”

H and I did not see that the Defendant was not inf’s chest

In light of the statement, it is difficult to believe the F’s statement as it is, ② in light of F’s past medical care benefit details, F’s statement about the degree of injury inflicted on the Defendant, etc., the medical certificate submitted by F that the F sustained injury from the Defendant was merely the content of the medical certificate submitted.

It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s statement on F’s chest contact at the results of the examination of the detection device at the investigation agency was a false response, but it is difficult to conclude that the examination result at the detection device was either conclusive or highly reliable (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do968, Jul. 21, 1987) and F’s statement was also impossible to determine that it is not a true response, in view of the fact that the aforementioned examination result was found to be a final and conclusive one having little possibility of an error (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do968, Jul. 21, 198).