The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) fact that the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged; however, considering the fact that the defendant respondeds to the purport of memory of the contract of this case after the same examination procedure, this part of the statement is made by mistake and thus there is no intention of perjury for the defendant.

In addition, the Defendant’s withdrawal of this part of the statement in the relevant interrogation procedure in compliance with the facts, and thus, the perjury is not established.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the lower court’s judgment 1) The Defendant in the summary of the factory laboratory of the Cheongju District Court on January 20, 201, located in the 51, Cheongju District Court located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Cheongju District Court No. 62, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju, and took an oath by attending as a witness of the fraud case against Defendant C, 2010 No. 1190 of the said court, and during the trial of the instant case, the Defendant “the witness will not associate with the defense counsel’s question regarding the 100 million won fake contract of September 19, 2003.”

“The statement was made”.

However, the fact, however, was that the defendant was present in the place where the trade contract was prepared, and that was paid the direct purchase price, and therefore the 100 million won fake trade contract is memory.

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

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty by taking account of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning.

B. However, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable.

The reasons are as follows.

1) When the testimony of a witness in perjury is based on a false statement contrary to memory in the relevant legal doctrine, the whole of the testimony during the relevant interrogation process should be identified as a whole, not as a part of the simple composition of the testimony, and as a result, it is revealed that the testimony was made without recognizing that what the witness is a witness is a mistake or a mistake goes against memory.