The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the defendant defendant's testimony of perjury was found guilty without any evidence that the circumstance that he/she became aware of the witness's testimony violates the witness's memory.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the part of the statement that he stated a certain fact from arbitra group is not a statement about the contents of his own experience, but a statement about another person's experience, so the circumstances that the witness knew of the fact, such as the absence of such expertise or the fact that the contents of the statement are different from the actual professional contents, can be determined as perjury only when he goes against memory, and merely because the contents of the statement are different from objective facts, it cannot be readily concluded that the above part of the statement was a false statement without any evidence that the circumstance that he became aware of the witness's memory goes against the witness's memory.

Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gong1, 1983, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Gwangju District Court Decision 91No307 delivered on August 2, 1991

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

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1. Where a witness states that he/she should know any fact, this constitutes perjury only when he/she made a statement about the fact that he/she became aware of by others, and the circumstances he/she became aware of are contrary to the witness memory. Among the defendant's statement that the court below found the defendant guilty, the part of the statement that "C left alone with the execution of reclamation work as part of the reclamation work as the contractor of the above reclamation work, as it is nothing more than the statement about his/her experience, and thus, it is about another person's experience." Thus, the defendant's statement that "C was neglected without the execution of construction work as part of the reclamation work as the contractor of the reclamation work," which was found guilty, is a statement about the contents of the other person's experience, so it can be determined as perjury only where the circumstances that he/she became aware of

However, even after examining the record, the court below did not find any evidence to determine whether the defendant's knowledge was contrary to the defendant's memory or not. However, the court below concluded that the above statement was a false statement based on the comparison of this point, and there is a reason to point this out.

2. In the Defendant’s statement that the lower court found the Defendant guilty, the portion of the Defendant’s statement that “only 50 meters only existed in the embankment, which was partially constructed, and only 50 meters away from the embankment,” among the parts of the Defendant’s statement that “only 50 meters only existed in the embankment with the function of the embankment, and the remainder is a complete embankment with the function of the embankment, and the remainder is narrow where the width is so narrow that people can walk in the middle, so the remainder was unable to perform its function as a embankment that makes it impossible to pass the vehicle and prevents the flow of seawater, and thus, it is not a statement contrary to memory.

However, the statement to the effect that part of the embankments were lost in the tides and that only about 50 meters remains, is a statement that objectively expresses the Defendant’s empirical facts and is not a subjective evaluation or opinion opinion as to empirical facts. If the purport of the above statement is objectively interpreted, only about 50 meters remain from among the banks constructed, and the remainder remains from the tides. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded on the grounds stated in the above Paragraph (1). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)