The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The notification system of the right to refuse to testify under the Criminal Procedure Act aims to guarantee the right to silent by sufficiently providing a witness with an opportunity to examine whether the existence of such right is silent or to state his/her opinion. In light of the fact that the presiding judge does not notify the witness of the right to refuse to testify before examination, even in cases where the presiding judge did not notify the witness of the right to refuse to testify, the establishment of perjury should be determined on the basis of whether the witness made a false statement without silence, by comprehensively taking into account the following as a whole: (a) the specific situation of the witness at the time of testimony in question; (b) the reason for refusal of witness; (c) whether the witness already knows the reason for refusal of witness or the existence of the right to refuse to testify; and (d) whether there are circumstances

Therefore, the principle of prohibition of coercion of unfavorable statements under Article 12 (2) of the Constitution is related to the privilege of denial of self-incrimination or the exercise of other right to refuse to testify.

In a case where it can be seen, the establishment of perjury should be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do942, Jan. 21, 2010). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the failure to receive notification of the right to refuse to testify at the time of testimony was actually hindered in exercising the right to refuse to testify, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the notification of the right to refuse to testify and the establishment of perjury, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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