Testimony that differs from the actual date of the contract and the date of the contract, and false public notice;

As it is difficult in light of the empirical rule to memory accurate day of another person's day, the defendant actually concludes a contract.

It can not be said that there was a false notarial act against memory with a testimony of two days or more.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 83No39 delivered on June 22, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty on the grounds that the defendant's actual examination date and the second day of the conclusion of the contract cannot be viewed as a false public service against his memory with the fact that each of the testimony of the court of first instance, the Kim Jong-dong and the prosecutor's protocol of the prosecutor's protocol, which correspond to the facts in the facts in this case, are written, and it is difficult to believe the judgment of the court of first instance or cannot be a clear evidence of conviction in light of other evidences. The court below's reasoning that the defendant's oral examination date and the second day of the testimony of the court of first instance cannot be seen as a false public service against his memory is reversed and acquitted. The court below's reasoning is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of perjury as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)