A prerequisite for determining whether the testimony called "not having known the fact" is a witness

Where the purport of the witness’s testimony is that the witness is aware of a certain fact, it is necessary to examine and determine the circumstances in which the witness became aware of the contents of his/her testimony and to determine whether the contents of testimony are against memory, and it is not concluded that only the part of the testimony is removed and it is false.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 82No1238 delivered on January 27, 1983

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

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is guilty of the charge of perjury of this case based on the statement in the court of the defendant, the protocol of interrogation of the suspect who prepared the prosecutor (at the police, there is no interrogation of the suspect in the police but there is no interrogation of the defendant in the police) and the protocol of statement as to the Kim Yong

However, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, ① purchased the above land from the plaintiff's house on October 9, 1946, without knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the sale and purchase of the land as stated in its holding, ② "the defendant was aware of the fact that he purchased it from the plaintiff's house immediately after acquiring it from the plaintiff's house, or sold it to the plaintiff's house with the plaintiff's seal." ③ The defendant testified that "the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that he sold it to the non-party's house and completed the registration of transfer" at 1065 no later than 156 days prior to the same village, but the defendant was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that the above land was sold to the defendant's house and the fact that the defendant was sold to the non-party's house on his own, and the court below stated that "the defendant was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff was sold to the defendant's house on his own, and that the defendant was aware of the fact that he was aware of the above fact."

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)