The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The judgment against Defendant A is not guilty.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A The defendant has not made a false statement contrary to his memory.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (B) The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

On August 11, 2017, the Defendant was present at the Seoul Northern District Court 401, the Seoul Northern District Court 201, which was located in Dobong-gu, in Seoul, and took an oath as a witness for the obstruction of performance of official duties and obstruction of performance of duties against C of the above court. On April 28, 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “On April 28, 2017, the Defendant (C) and the first fesschi on the restaurant of “D” and feschi on the restaurant of “D” and feschischi on the floor, and fschi on the floor of the Defendant’s feschischi, and feschi on the floor. However, the Defendant did not participate at all, and fessat and fess at the seat of B.”

However, in fact, the above temporary border B laid the floor of the above, and C and E did an act to interfere with the operation of the restaurant by putting the c and E on the floor, by combining it with it, and neglecting the operation of the restaurant.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on the evidence adopted by the lower court.

Since perjury is established by a witness who has taken an oath under an Act to make a statement contrary to his/her memory, the statement is not consistent with objective facts.

Even if the testimony is contrary to witness memory, it should not be regarded as perjury before examining whether the testimony goes against witness memory (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do80, Dec. 13, 198). Whether the witness’s testimony is a false statement contrary to his memory or not should be determined by understanding the whole testimony in the relevant examination procedure as a whole, not a simple Section of the testimony. The meaning of the testimony is the meaning of the testimony.