A. Whether the content of testimony should be relevant to matters that affect the facts requiring proof or the outcome of the trial in order to establish perjury;

(b) the requirement for the testimony "not knowing any fact" to constitute a perjury.

A. If a witness who has taken an oath, makes a false statement contrary to his memory, even though the contents of the statement do not constitute an essential proof of the case, or did not have any effect on the result of the trial, he cannot be exempted from the liability for perjury.

B. In general, when a witness makes a statement of a fact that he/she had experienced or experienced another person, the witness makes a statement that he/she had become aware of the fact. As such, in determining whether the circumstance he/she became aware of is contrary to the defendant's memory, it should be determined by considering what kind of circumstance he/she has become aware. Only if the statement is different from objective facts, it cannot be readily concluded that he/she is a statement contrary to memory.

(b)Article 152 of the Criminal Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Do863 delivered on September 13, 1966, 80Do2783 delivered on August 25, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 84No1788 delivered on November 23, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, when the defendant appeared as a witness of a civil suit between the non-indicted 1 and the same static light tank as in his judgment and testified, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the defendant, in violation of his memory, he made a false statement by finding out the payment certificate delivered from the above luminous light to be left in his own garbage brue with the above brue, and by finding it out the brue in accordance with the above brue house with the above brue brue, despite considering the fact that three persons such as the defendant, etc., discovered the brue and put it in line with the brue house, and (1) made a false statement by finding it into the brue brue house constructed by the above brue light, despite the defect in the brue construction built by the above brue light.

2. According to the records, the above (1) facts among the defendant's statements are sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement against his memory, and there is no illegality in the process of evidence preparation, and even if the above contents of the statement are not the essential facts of the case in question or have no effect on the result of the trial, it cannot be exempted from the liability for perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Do863, Sept. 13, 196; Supreme Court Decision 80Do2783, Aug. 25, 1981). Thus, it is groundless that the court below argued the conviction of the above parts of the statement.

3. However, with respect to the above facts, the summary of the statement is "B" as it is deemed that there is no defect in the bath work executed by the non-indicted 2's light. In general, when a witness makes a statement to "B" any fact, the witness makes a statement that he/she had experienced directly or experienced another person, and thus, he/she should be determined as to what circumstances he/she became aware, and whether he/she goes against his/her memory should be determined, and it cannot be concluded that the statement is against memory just because it is different from objective facts.

According to the records, the defendant testified that he was aware that he did not have any defect in construction from the non-indicted mining tank and that he was engaged in bathing business normally after undergoing a legal completion inspection, and therefore he testified that he was aware that he did not have any defect. Thus, if the circumstances in which the defendant became aware that he did not have any defect, it is difficult to see that the previous harm was a statement contrary to his memory that he did not have any defect due to the fact that he had observed and stated that he did not have any defect.

Although the court below should examine the circumstances that the defendant knew that there was no defect in construction and determine whether the defendant can be seen as a statement contrary to memory, the court below has maintained the judgment of one court by concluding that the defendant was a false statement against memory throughout the course of deliberation on this point without any trace of completely examining this point. Therefore, we cannot avoid reversal in this regard, and there is good reason to discuss this point.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)