The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant signed part of the statement of actual transaction, and testified in violation of memory by attending as a witness even though he was given money as a construction cost for piling up boundary points from E. The above testimony is false, and the defendant's perjury can be sufficiently recognized. Thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part.

2. Whether the testimony of the witness is a false statement contrary to his memory or not shall be judged by understanding the whole of the testimony during the examination procedure in question as a whole, not by the simple Section of the testimony. Even if the whole purport of the testimony is consistent with objective facts and it is inconsistent with his memory as to the minor part of the testimony, it cannot be a perjury if it is caused by damage to or mistake of the purpose of the examination.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do2864 delivered on March 12, 1996). Of the facts charged as to the perjury, the part on the signature of the statement of trading in the indictment as to the signature of this case is difficult to see that the defendant had the intention of perjury and reversed the immediately preceding statement in the cross-examination organized by the person who has already signed the statement of trading at the main examination. This part of the defendant's statement was made by mistake without properly understanding the purport of the cross-examination, as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the part related to the nature of the money received from E, together with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, shall be determined that the defendant's statement in this part is false, if the details of return, such as the change of the defendant, are confirmed in the account transaction (Article 281 to 285 of the Investigation Records).