The defendant shall be innocent.

On December 6, 2012, the Defendant appeared as a witness on the date of trial on the loan case No. 2012Na30631, which was held at the court of Seoul Central District Court 309, Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court 309, which was held in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court 309, and testified against his memory as follows.

The Defendant responded to C’s question, “I have known that I would have paid money directly to E in the name of D of the witness.”

However, on June 207, 2007, C, who was an employee of F and D operated by the Defendant, sold D’s land to E in Gunsan-si G and F’s Gunsan-si. On August 2007, C was demanded to refund due to the fact that there was no part of H’s land available from E.

Accordingly, C reported the fact that E calls for refund to the Defendant, and around September 5, 2007, F, which the Defendant operated, took out a loan of KRW 50 million from the former Mutual Savings Bank, and remitted KRW 48,190,000 to C’s account in the name of one bank on the same day, and C immediately remitted KRW 48,190,000 to E’s account in the name of refund, and the Defendant was well aware of the fact as F’s actual operator.

Thus, even though the defendant was a witness who has taken an oath under the law, he made a false statement contrary to his memory, and perjury.

Judgment

In order to recognize a witness’s statement as a perjury, there should be proof that the content of the statement is beyond reasonable doubt as to the fact that it goes against the witness’s memory, and if it does not reach this, he/she may not be punished for perjury.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the records of this case, the Defendant is against Seoul Central District Court Decision 309, Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na30631, supra, around December 6, 2012.