The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not make a false statement contrary to memory, and even if the Defendant is deemed to have made a false statement contrary to memory, the Defendant’s withdrawal of the statement prior to the completion of the examination is not perjury.

Although the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, the lower court omitted the judgment on the allegation of withdrawal.

2. Determination

A. Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not 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. Thus, even if a prior witness made a false statement contrary to memory once he/she was examined, it shall not be perjury in cases where the witness withdraws his/her statement before the examination is completed.

Where the meaning of testimony in itself is unclear or it can be understood differently by itself, the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, and the progress of the testimony conducted, etc. shall be considered to have made clear the meaning of the testimony in question and make a decision as to its falsity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do2417, Jun. 23, 2005; 2010Do7525, Sept. 30, 2010). (b) Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) A is the head of the F branch of an incorporated association (hereinafter referred to as the "branch"), G is the real estate developer, and the defendant is the sales agent.

A and G, in collusion with the defendant, filed an application for special sale of apartment units in the name of the disabled persons who are members of the branch, to acquire the proceeds from resale within the limited period of resale and arrange the resale of the right to sell apartment units, were prosecuted in this court on May 25, 2016 (No. 2016 high group 1325).

A. A.