The case holding that the testimony cannot be viewed as false or false if the whole testimony is fully grasped.

The case holding that the testimony cannot be deemed false or false when comprehensively grasping the whole testimony.

Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do1718 decided Feb. 28, 1989 (Gong1989,557) 89Do1748 decided May 10, 1991 (Gong1991,1674) 93Do1044 decided Jun. 29, 1993 (Gong193,2203)

A

Defendant

Attorneys B and 2 others

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No5976 delivered on June 4, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that, around 10:30 on April 14, 1990, the defendant, who was the defendant being the representative of the corporation C, was a person working for the defendant as the representative of the corporation C, and that, at the same time, the Suwon District Court rendered a statement to the effect that, at the request of the above E, the defendant did not contact with G doctoral degree and other persons residing in the United States for consultation, and that, at the request of the above E, the defendant was present and testified as a witness of the case such as violation of the Customs Act against the defendant E, etc., which was held by the judge of the second criminal court of the same court by the judge of the court of Suwon District Court, the court below convicted him of the facts that the defendant was guilty of the defendant's false testimony while importing ham and bacon with the defendant at the request of the above E.

2. According to the records, it can be seen that the defendant's defendant case, including violation of the Customs Act, etc., of the Suwon District Court 90Dahap29 against the above Eul, alleged that the defendant was not himself but the defendant and the defendant were to purchase the imported goods from the defendant, and thus, the prosecutor applied for a summons as a witness. Accordingly, the gist of the examination against the defendant was whether the above beer E is the person who imported the above beer, and the defendant was merely the person who imported the above beer, or whether the above beer was merely the defendant's agreement to purchase the beer imported by the defendant as alleged in the above E.

3. Therefore, as to whether the above Vietnam was the defendant or not, each deposit sheet submitted by the defense counsel Nos. 1 and 2 (the trial records No. 235, 236), a document submitted No. 4 (the trial records No. 238), a letter (the trial records No. 239, 248) and each letter attached to the trial records No. 5 through 9 (the trial records No. 73 through 80) submitted by the defense counsel were collected from the defendant's prosecutor's office, the first instance court, and the original court's office. On February 1989, the defendant and the above Eul concluded a contract with the above Eul to make the above defendant invest No. 100,000,000 won, and it is difficult for the above defendant to use the above new food No. 3 to have the above new food No. 9 to exchange the above new food No. 3 under the name of the defendant's defense counsel and to have the above new food No.

A prosecutor has withdrawn the portion of the testimony in the original facts charged at the court below that "only the defendant imported the above food on behalf of the defendant" although he directly imported the above food, and the purport of recognizing that the person who imported the above food was the above E and the defendant was acting on behalf of the defendant is the above E.

4. Whether the witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not should be judged by fully ascertaining the whole of the testimony during the examination procedure in question, rather than by the simple Section of the testimony. We will examine the contents of the defendant's testimony in this case.

(1) According to the above Suwon District Court's 90Gohap29, a certified copy of the examination record of witness (150 to 166 pages of the trial record) against the defendant, the overall testimony of the defendant is not directly imported by the defendant but imported by the above E, and the defendant was merely an import process on behalf of the defendant.

(2) We examine the first part of the facts charged in the instant case.

According to the records, the defendant's statement as a witness of the above case, "the witness made a statement to the effect that he did not contact with the doctoral degree and that his consultation was mixed with the defendant (E)," which is the defendant of the above case, "no, true," but the defendant's testimony was acknowledged to have responded to "no, true," but the questioning immediately before the above newspaper was sent to G doctoral degree by facsimile or teleex for 60 days from 89.3 to 6.0 days, and the sender's friendly relation with doctoral degree was sent to the defendant: Provided, That the sender's name was sent to the defendant as a doctoral degree, and the defendant cannot be seen as having led the above defendant to the above fact that he sent the above documents to the defendant for consultation with the doctoral degree because he was under his personal control, and thus, he cannot be seen as having sent the above documents to the defendant for consultation with the above defendant, and the defendant's statement to the effect that he sent the above documents under the name of the above doctoral degree of consultation with the defendant's."

(3) Also, we examine the second part of the facts charged in the instant case.

According to the statement of the above copy of the witness examination protocol, the defendant did not directly state that "G doctoral degree is not sent and the defendant (E) was supervised by the defendant." However, the letter written by the defendant (E) among each of the above letters is written in the form of "E" or "H" and the receiver of the letter written by the witness was written in the form of "I", "J, K", and "H" with "H" and the sender was written in the form of a typing, and the facsimile number was written in the first head of each letter on the witness's hand, but the facsimile number was in charge of the defendant (E), so it was confirmed that there was documents brought by female personnel to the defendant (E), and the receiver and the sender sent the letter to the defendant (E), and only the witness sent the letter to the defendant (E) with the testimony of "I", "I, K, and the sender was sent."

As seen earlier, the aforementioned testimony also states that employees of the letter prepared by the above E for counseling negotiation have tamply transmitted it to G doctor's name using the Defendant's existing equipment such as facsimile, etc., but the fact that the letter was not sent to confirm procedural matters as an import agent after the consultation was conducted, but the consultation for food import was conducted under the lead of the above E, and that there was no fact that the letter was sent by the Defendant under the supervision of the defendant for counseling negotiation. Thus, the statement in the above part is also false or false, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had false awareness.

5. Therefore, although the testimony of this case cannot be viewed as a false statement, or the defendant cannot be viewed as a false statement, the court below found the facts charged of this case as guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles of perjury, and there is a reason to point out this point.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)