The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the acquittal of the charge of perjury was against the rules of evidence

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it was not guilty of the violation of the rules of evidence.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 89No1450 delivered on January 12, 1990

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

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The court below rejected the judgment of the first instance which found the defendant guilty on the grounds that it is difficult to believe each of the statements of the highest, highest, south, and Kim, which correspond to the facts charged, and found the defendant not guilty. The defendant's testimony of this case was lent 3 million won from the non-indicted 1 at the Daegu branch of Hanil Bank on January 8, 1985, and at that time the defendant borrowed 2 million won from the non-indicted 1 to the highest, and it was prosecuted that the defendant made the above statement in spite of the fact that the defendant did not agree with the above bank, and that he borrowed 2 million won from the above bank or borrowed her money. In addition, the above statement rejected by the court below was the highest, around December 2, 1984, the defendant lent her house to the Gyeongnam branch of the Republic of Korea to the non-indicted 1, 1985, and the defendant lent her best loan to the non-indicted 1, 1985.

However, at around 10:00 on January 8, 1985, the Defendant received a telephone from Nonindicted Party 1 to lend three million won from the above bank upon request of the above bank, and he borrowed money from the above bank. At that time, Nonindicted Party 1 borrowed two million won from the above bank. According to the Defendant’s statement as evidence consistent with the above statement, the Defendant: (a) went to the Use Bank at around 13:00 on that day; (b) he borrowed money from the highest bank at around 13:5 million won; and (c) according to Nonindicted Party 1’s statement, the Defendant borrowed money from the above bank at around 13:00 on that day; (d) he borrowed money from the highest bank at around 1984, while the highest amount of KRW 2.5 million on January 7, 1985; and (e) he borrowed money from the above bank at the highest amount of KRW 4.5 million on that day; and (e) he borrowed money from the borrowed Bank at around 1.5 million on that day: 1.5 million on that day.

Among the evidence that correspond to the facts charged, there is an error in the highest annual statement as to the amount of loans to the peripheralnam (102,105 pages) or KRW 3,700,000,000 (the first instance court ruling). The highest annual rate lost a seal imprint before December 1, 1984, but it is found around August 1, 1986. The issue is that the application form for registration under the highest annual name and the stamp image of the marriage report are the same as the stamp image of the loan certificate of this case. However, the credibility of the statement about the loss of a seal imprint is not directly related to the facts charged in this case against the defendant even if it is forged or not.

However, it is doubtful that the defendant had no highest number of statements made by him/her at the time of his/her testimony and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/her, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/her at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/herself as a witness at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/herself at the time of his/her testimony: 10 million won, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/herself at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/herself at the time of his/her testimony: 20 million won, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/her at the time of his/her initial testimony at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she had no highest number of statements made by him/herself at the time of his/her testimony, and that he/she had no more than 2.

The court below's rejection of related evidence, including the testimony of the highest court consistent with the facts charged by the defendant and the defendant's acquittal of the defendant by taking the defendant's legal action does not constitute an unlawful violation of the rules of evidence. The arguments

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)