The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) stated that the Defendant appeared as a witness of the above court No. 2017 High Court No. 302, which was held in Seoul Northern District Court No. 302, and took an oath, and stated that he/she took several times, not once from E, even though he/she memoryed that he/she was friendly.

Furthermore, the defendant's statement is not an exaggeration of circumstances.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Perjury 1) is established when a witness who has taken an oath under the law makes a false statement. As such, when a witness’s false statement poses a risk of infringing the national judicial function by the witness’s false statement, it shall be deemed an abstract dangerous crime completed regardless of specific risk occurrence. Therefore, whether the content of the statement concerns the facts requiring proof of the relevant case or affected the conclusion of the judgment does not have any relation with the establishment of perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1212, Feb. 23, 1990). Even if the content of the testimony is about a productive matter, perjury is established if a false statement contrary to memory is contrary to memory (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do2069, Jun. 8, 1982). However, whether a witness’s testimony is false or false should be determined by understanding the whole witness’s testimony in the examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple part of the testimony, and if it is inconsistent with the objective purpose of memory or whole.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2864, Mar. 12, 1996). It is even if there is a director of the circumstantial situation among the contents of testimony.