The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 21, 2014, the Defendant was present in the case of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation, etc.) at the Suwon District Court 2013 Gowon 6007 Gowon, 2013 Gowon 607 Gowon, and was punished for perjury before the judge.

The letter was drawn by law.

After the defendant took an oath as above, the prosecutor’s “the witness will die of the defendant.”

It is essential that he/she has met the Cheongbu business operator.

In response to the prosecutor’s question, “for example,” and, according to the Defendant’s words, C(Defendant) told C(Defendant) that “If 350 witnesses died on the old day, it would be true that C so died on the old day.”

There is no answer to the question “.......”

“The answer was made.”

However, in the case of Ansan-si F Office operated by D on January 1, 2008, whether the Defendant “C is unable to die” to D.

“In fact upon the request of the court,” and around August 2008 from H located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G to “A due to the defendant,” I leave the frame.

There was a fact that 3.5 million won is 3.5 million won, and that she said that she was unreshed.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory and raised perjury.

2. Determination

A. Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the witness’s testimony. Where the meaning of testimony in question is unclear or diversely understood, the meaning of the testimony should be clearly determined after considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the progress of the testimony in question, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252, Dec. 27, 2001). Meanwhile, the burden of proving criminal facts charged in a criminal trial lies in the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt requires a judge to make a reasonable doubt.