beta
Main Issues
Time of perjury
Summary of Judgment
Since testimony of a witness is judged to fully observe the whole witness, even if a witness who has taken an oath makes a false statement contrary to his memory, it is reasonable to deem that the testimony does not constitute perjury in a case where the testimony is revoked before the examination is completed. Therefore, the time when perjury is raised is interpreted as when the testimony of a witness is completed (in a case where an order to take an oath is issued after the statement, it will be the number when the oath is completed).
[Reference Provisions]
Article 152 of the Criminal Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Busan District Court Decision 73No1330 delivered on January 25, 1974
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The testimony of the witness for scam shall be judged in whole as a whole to observe the whole, and even if a witness who has taken an oath makes a false statement contrary to his memory, it is reasonable to deem that the testimony does not constitute perjury in the case where the testimony has been revoked before the examination was completed, and therefore, the time of perjury should be interpreted as when the testimony of the witness was completed (in the case where an oath is ordered after an oath is made, it will be the number of times when the oath is completed). The court below is justified in the judgment of the court below that the defendant, who is the teacher, made a false statement contrary to his memory by the defendant's teacher in making a statement as a witness after oath at the Busan District Court of Busan, but did not establish perjury as to the facts corrected by the cross-examination of the public prosecutor, and that the defendant, who is the teacher, does not constitute perjury, unless the perjury is established.
A theory of perjury is based on the premise that perjury is established immediately after a false statement is made, and criticizes the original time, but it is not reasonable to discuss it as it objects to the above explanation.
Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)