The criteria for determining whether the testimony to the effect that the other person's experience is a witness.

If the content of testimony was experienced by another person, or it was indirectly known that records or documents were reported to him/her, such statement shall be deemed to be contrary to his/her memory, in cases where the statement does not coincide with the contents set forth in the preceding paragraph or the contents of the document known to him/her, and thus, it shall be deemed that the statement constitutes perjury. In such a case, depending on the circumstances in which the witness became aware of the content of testimony, whether the testimony was a statement contrary to memory or not.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do42 Delivered on September 27, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 82No444 delivered on November 3, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as stated in the facts charged, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the testimony that "the defendant, as a witness, stated that "the defendant was the victim's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's her son's son's son's son's son's son

However, if the testimony concerning the past facts that a witness could not have experienced by himself/herself is based on a simple opinion or conjection as a witness, it shall not be deemed that such testimony constitutes a false public drinking, which is the constituent element of perjury, but if the contents of testimony were either to have experienced or to have been indirectly known by reporting records or documents, such statement shall be deemed to have been contrary to his/her memory. Thus, if the testimony does not coincide with those of the documents known to him/her, it shall be deemed that the statement constitutes perjury. Therefore, in such a case, according to the records, it shall be determined whether the witness's testimony is against his/her memory (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do42, Sept. 27, 1983) because the summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant's testimony is not a legitimate witness's opinion or connotation, and thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant's testimony was an unlawful witness's opinion or connotation of the facts that he/she stated in the court below's testimony because it did not affect the defendant's testimony or connotation of evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed for a new trial and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)