A. Method of determining whether a statement in perjury is false

(b) A sexual part of perjury where the very minor part of testimony is inconsistent with memory;

A. Whether testimony of a witness in perjury constitutes a false statement contrary to memory should be determined by fully ascertaining the entire testimony in the examination procedure in question, not by seeking a simple Section of the testimony.

B. Even if the entire purport of testimony is consistent with objective facts and is not a statement contrary to memory, the perjury cannot be established if it is deemed that it is a statement due to the collapse or mistake of the purpose of examination.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do1718 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989,557) 89Do1748 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991,1674) 93Do104 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993,203) B. Supreme Court Decision 81Do207 delivered on February 8, 1983 (Gong1983,523) 86Do1050 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong1986,027) 89Do1748 delivered on May 10, 191 (Gong1674)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 92No2193 delivered on January 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether testimony of a witness in perjury constitutes a false statement contrary to memory is not a part of the simple composition of the witness's testimony, but a whole testimony during the relevant examination procedure should be judged by fully understanding it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do935, Dec. 6, 1988; 89Do1748, May 10, 1991; 93Do1044, Jun. 29, 1993; 93Do104, Jun. 29, 1993; 93Do104, Jun. 29, 1993; 81Do105, Sept. 14, 1982; 81Do207, Feb. 8, 1983).

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the overall purport of the defendant's testimony was due to the non-indicted 1's purchase of the forest of this case jointly with the non-indicted 1's living together, and that the non-indicted 2's her husband did not know the contents of the forest of this case since he did not participate in the specific course of the sale of the forest of this case and the creation of the purchase price, etc., which is consistent with objective facts. However, although it did not go against memory as to the minor portion, the non-indicted 1 is not guilty on the ground that the non-indicted 1's explanation is about a certain circumstance to emphasize that he is a co-owner of the forest of this case, or the purport of the examination was destroyed by a mistake or a mistake in the purport of the examination.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)