The gender of perjury in a case where a witness does not grasp the witness's detailed examination of the witness, or where he simply gives a positive answer (affirmative)

If a witness does not grasp the detailed contents of the examination or gives an answer to the purport that he/she is aware of the contents of the examination, even though he/she is unable to memory, he/she shall be deemed to have made a false statement against his/her memory.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Im Il-young

Cheongju District Court Decision 79No583 delivered on December 5, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant stated on the charge of perjury of this case as a witness, since the contents of testimony, such as the facts charged, which the defendant stated on the charge of perjury, are stated in the statement that he had previously heard from the order of Yellow Month, even though it is contrary to objective facts, it cannot be recognized that the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, and there is no evidence to conclude that the above testimony of the defendant was a perjury, and

(2) However, according to the records, if the defendant sold the above case to the non-indicted 1 as the plaintiff, the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1 as the defendant and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1 as the main claim and the non-indicted 2's counter-indicted 3's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1'6'.

(3) If under the facts identical to the above recognition, the purport of the defendant's application as a witness in the above litigation case or the purport of the defendant's above testimony was clearly proved that the 2.5 square meters, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, was not included in the above leap among the above testimony, by clarifying the location and reputation of the subject matter of the lawsuit between the above leaple and the leaplen, and thus, it should be deemed that the part of the defendant's above testimony concerning the location of the land purchased from the above leaplelelele, and the part of the statement concerning the reputation, is the core part of the above testimony and is different from the statement

그런데 피고인은 이 점에 관하여 이 사건의 1심에서 '정확한 평수(10.4평)와 매매일자를 몰랐다'(2차 공판기일)거나, 원심에서 '황달순에게 판 사실을 황달순에게 들어서 알고 있으나 10평 4홉이란 말은 그 당시 하지 않았다'(1차 공판기일)거나, '(강윤중과 황달순간의) 매수관계에 대해서는 증언한 사실이 없으며 황달순으로부터 방 몇 칸을 샀다고 증언한 것이다.' '황달순이 강윤중으로부터 산 부분이 어느 곳인지 그 위치에 관해서는 증언한 사실이 없고 평수에 관해서도 등기권리증을 교부받고 10.4평인 사실을 알게 되었다'(9차 공판기일)는 취지로 진술하다가 원심 제12차 공판기일에 이르러 매매계약서와 위 황달순으로부터 들어서 아는 내용을 공소사실과 같이 진술한 것이라는 취지로 변소하고 있다.

If the contents of the Defendant’s statement in the court of first instance are combined with that of the Defendant’s confession and other evidence by the court of first instance at the prosecutor’s office prior to the date of pleading of the court below as above, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant testified as if the Defendant had been aware of the accurate location and reputation of the land purchased during the pertinent leaple, despite the absence of a clear memory, and as if he was aware of the accurate location and reputation. Even if the Defendant came to know of the details of the said land transaction as of the 12th trial date, as in the case of the change of the leaplele court at the 19th trial of the court below, it does not interfere with the view that at least at least at the time of testimony in the above civil court, the Defendant testified in detail as if he is memory without a clear memory as to the exact location and reputation of the contents of the testimony (see, e.g., a sales contract as one of the grounds on which the Defendant became aware of the above trading relations, the Defendant did not indicate the same location and reputation as above.)

Nevertheless, without examining whether the defendant's conviction that the defendant's testimony of the court below stated that the contents of the defendant's testimony were heard and known to the court below in the order of the Yellow Month was about the accurate location and reputation of the subject matter to be traded, such as the testimony, it cannot be said that there was an error of violating the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, that there was a violation of the facts against the rules of the first instance court and the court below's testimony, as stated above.

When a witness’s statement in the civil court is often made in the form of an answer to the question of a party or his/her representative as a witness, the case where a witness gives a simple affirmative answer to the detailed question of the party or his/her representative as if the witness himself/herself had made the statement like the contents of the detailed examination. However, even in such a case, if a witness gives a reply to the purport that he/she is affirmed even though he/she did not grasp or associate with the detailed examination contents, it cannot be deemed that he/she ultimately made a false statement like the examination contents against his/her memory. In particular, if the location of the subject matter to be traded and the number of the subject matter to be traded was the major purpose of proof of the testimony, as in this case, if the witness’s statement was merely an answer to the question of the location and balance according to the examination contents, it shall not be deemed that he/she made a false statement like the examination contents.

2. Ultimately, the prosecutor's grounds of appeal are with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)