The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of all the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, but it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's testimony was false in violation of the defendant's memory, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge this differently. The court below erred by misunderstanding

2. Determination of perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath under law makes a statement contrary to his/her memory, so his/her testimony cannot be readily concluded as perjury immediately on the ground that it does not conform to objective facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do192, Aug. 23, 1996). In cases where the witness’s statement is legal evaluation of facts experienced or simple opinion is not passed, it cannot be said that it constitutes a false statement in perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1797, Feb. 9, 1996). Whether the witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his/her memory is not a simple part of the testimony, but a whole testimony in the relevant examination procedure should be determined by fully understanding the witness’s testimony, and even if it is inconsistent with objective facts and it does not go against his/her memory, if it is contrary to the purport of the examination or its mistake, it cannot be concluded that the witness’s testimony is contrary to the aforementioned legal principles.