In the criteria for determining whether testimony is false or not, the meaning of the witness's mistake and perjury;

When the testimony of a witness in perjury is based on whether it is a false statement contrary to memory, the whole testimony made in the relevant examination procedure shall be grasped as a whole, not a simple part of the testimony, but a whole of the testimony made in the relevant examination procedure, and as a result, the crime of perjury cannot be recognized if it is proved that the witness has testified without awareness that his/her mistake or mistake goes against memory.

Articles 13 and 152 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do1780 decided Oct. 13, 1987 (Gong1987,1751) 88Do935 decided Dec. 6, 1988 (Gong1989,121) 87Do1718 decided Feb. 28, 1989 (Gong1989,557)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Yellow-soo

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No6210 delivered on July 21, 1989

The judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. Of Defendant 1's criminal facts that the court below found Defendant 1 guilty, it is reasonable in light of related evidence that Defendant 1 paid the construction cost for the 50.47 square meters of the underground room of the 200 square meters of the 400 square meters of the underground room, and that Defendant 1 (the case No. 81No6044 case) was aware of the fact that Defendant 1 (the case No. 81No604 case) paid the construction cost for the 50.47 square meters of the 200 square meters of the underground room in the court of appeal, such as breach of trust against Defendant 81No6044 (the case No. 81No6044 case) at around April 14, 1982. The part that the court below found Defendant 1 guilty that Defendant 1 (the case No. 81No6044 case) paid the construction cost to the 200 square meters of the underground room, and that Defendant 2 did not pay the construction cost or construction cost.

2. According to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, Defendant 1 was well aware of the fact that the part indicated as 13-1 among the ground plan of the underground room of the above court of Grade B (81No6044) was owned by the defendant, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the above statement was inconsistent with objective facts in light of the evidence presented by the court of first instance.

However, when the testimony of a witness in perjury is found to be contrary to his memory, the whole testimony during the examination procedure shall not be distorted to the simple part of the testimony, and if it is found as a result of the testimony that is contrary to his memory, the crime of perjury cannot be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 88Do935 delivered on December 6, 198; Supreme Court Decision 66Do1512 delivered on February 20, 1968). It is difficult for the defendant 1 to consistently state his testimony in the above examination procedure against the facts that the witness's testimony belongs to the defendant (81No604 delivered on the ground of this case) from 167 square meters above, and the remaining part of the witness's testimony belongs to the above owner's co-ownership, which is contrary to his objective purport that the defendant's testimony belongs to the above co-owner's co-ownership from 197 to 197, and it is contrary to his objective purport that the defendant's testimony belongs to the above co-ownership 4 and the above witness's testimony.

Therefore, the court below's conclusion that the above testimony is a perjury merely because the testimony and objective facts are different from the above testimony of Defendant 1 is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of perjury or in finding the facts of perjury without sufficient deliberation as to the criminal intent of perjury. Thus, there is no ground to point out this point.

3. Accordingly, the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)