The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court held that there is evidence sufficient to have a reasonable doubt as to the fact that the testimony as stated in the facts charged in the instant case is a false statement contrary to the Defendant’s memory, solely with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

On the ground that it is difficult to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

1) In relation to the testimony of the instant case, F’s defense counsel asked the Defendant questions about the contents of the interview at Daegu City after his replacement.

It was mutually agreed to consult with the representative of the bereaved family, such as the Deputy Director General, the Director General, and the director general of the fire fighting headquarters, with respect to the question (hereinafter referred to as “the first question”) and the (after this day), regarding the memorial business.

In order to determine whether the testimony of this case constitutes perjury, first of all, the question should be examined in order to determine whether the testimony of this case constitutes perjury.

2) According to the statement of the copy of the examination protocol of witness (the investigation record No. 578 pages, 228 pages) the F’s defense counsel asked the Defendant prior to the instant inquiry as to whether the Defendant was a party to the agreement if there was an agreement between Daegu and the Countermeasure Committee on July 1, 2009 and the victim and whether the Defendant was a party to the agreement, and “the statement of the statement of the H head of the fire headquarters and the executive branch at the Daegu City Fire Headquarters at the time of the interview on July 1, 2009” as stated in the facts charged.