2013 Maz. 693 Maz.

A

Sicks (prosecutions) and leaptables (public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

July 3, 2013

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On August 13, 2012, the Defendant appeared to take an oath in the court of Daejeon District Court No. 318, which was located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, as a witness of the Defendant’s injury to C, the above court of the High Court No. 318.

The Defendant testified to the presiding judge D of the above court in the trial of the instant case that “C was aware of the liabilities, but was entirely contacted with E’s face, and the remaining loss of the liabilities of the department was not re-fluored or friendly into E’s face, and at the time E was not friendly, and at the same time, the liabilities was reduced to land, while E was in charge, and C did not have any liabilities at all.”

However, facts showed that C had scam of plastic liabilities cited in E’s face, and that part of the remaining hand of the debt of the department after which C had been scamed back to E’s face, thereby resulting in an injury and injury to E.

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

2. Determination

A. In perjury, a false statement refers to a statement that a witness experienced rather than a false representation compared to objective facts, against his/her memory. Therefore, the mere fact that a witness made a statement contrary to objective truth cannot be deemed as perjury, and the said statement goes against his/her memory can only be deemed as perjury (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2209, Dec. 10, 1991).

B. The Defendant’s testimony indicated in the witness examination protocol is that, in light of the overall contents of the testimony, “C had shown that the obligation of the Defendant was satisfyed near the face of E, but its obligation was not considered to be fit for E’s face.” Therefore, in order for the aforementioned testimony to constitute a false testimony contrary to the Defendant’s memory, E’s face was satisfied with C’s liability, and the Defendant appears to be the premise that it would be memory at the time of testimony.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the possibility that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not sufficient to view E’s face up to the point where the Defendant was located near the time of the instant case, depending on the location and view of the Defendant, even if the Defendant was located near the time of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this fact.

(1) E이 위 대전지방법원 2012고정353호 상해 사건에서 증인으로 출석하여 "피고인이 일어나더니 부채를 제 얼굴에 바짝 대고서 주둥이 닥치라고 하면서 이렇게 막 얼굴에 그었습니다. 그래서 제가 부채를 손으로 탁 치니까 플라스틱이라 빠졌습니다. 그랬는데 플라스틱 하얗게 된 것으로 제 얼굴에 대고 몇 번 이렇게 했습니다. 그래서 제 얼굴이 조금 긁혔습니다"라고 진술하였다.

(2) 위 사건에서 검사가 신청한 증인 F가 위 사건 증인으로 출석하여 "피고인이 부채를 들고 있었는데 그 부채로 삿대질식으로 하다가 그것이 플라스틱이다 보니까 부러진 것입니다. 그런데 콧등에 상처가 났었나 봅니다. 그런데 저도 그 때까지는 몰랐었습니다. 삿대질식으로 이렇게 했으니까 부챗살이 코에 찔렸습니다. 제가 말리고 그 다음에 E 보고 얼른 집으로 가라고 하면서 나중에 서로 오해 풀라고 했는데, 불빛에서 보니까 콧등이 빨갛게 되어 있었습니다."라고 진술하였을 뿐만 아니라 '부채로 삿대질하다가 코에 찔렸던 것이지 때렸다고 표현하기는 어렵다'는 취지로 진술하였다.

(3) Even according to F’s prosecutorial investigation report (Investigation Record 182,183) on F, it is stated to the effect that the above F, which was immediately next to E, had a high dispute, brought about the said F, brought about an article against the plastic debt of the Department C, and only viewed that the debt was a crypted for the victim, etc., and that it did not seem to have any other part.

(4) The diagnosis letter received on August 20, 201, the following day after this C’s debt included only “satisfying satisfying satisfy in the name of Byung” (in the investigation record 123 pages), and the diagnosis of E face was not diagnosed or was not diagnosed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, there is a lack of proof of a crime that the defendant's above testimony constitutes a false testimony contrary to the defendant's subjective memory, apart from the fact that the defendant's testimony constitutes an objective false testimony, so the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58

Records of Judges Lee Jong-soo