The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal ① It is true that the defendant merely stated that "D had tried to receive and receive house on the land of this case" as to the question whether the contents of the examination of the witness in the case related to the administrative litigation at the time were "D". However, the defendant had previously submitted a written objection and a letter to the captain-gun Office stating that "D, etc. had cultivated crops directly on the land of this case from December 2001, and he had heard from the public official in charge of the captain-Gun office about the above written objection and the statement that the above written objection would be problematic when they were false, and considering the situation where the above written objection and the written withdrawal of the objection were withdrawn, the above questioning at the time of the examination of the witness did not simply ask whether D had received and received house at the time of the examination of the witness," but rather, it is obvious that the defendant's assertion itself constitutes a misunderstanding of legal principles or testimony in the case of this case where D had no knowledge of whether D actually received and received house."

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is that whether a witness's testimony is a false statement contrary to his memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, not by the simple Section of the witness's testimony. If the meaning of the testimony in question is unclear or it can be understood differently, the meaning of the testimony in question shall be clearly defined by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances surrounding the testimony in question, etc.