If testimony contrary to witness memory is consistent with objective facts, the nature of perjury;

If a witness gives a statement contrary to his memory, perjury is established even if the content of the statement is consistent with objective facts.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Do1549 delivered on August 29, 1972, 78Do2026 delivered on April 8, 1980, 81Do105 Delivered on September 14, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Chang-chul

Daejeon District Court Decision 86No133 delivered on August 22, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

In light of the records, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts against the defendant in the first trial of the judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the arguments and there is no error of misconception of the facts.

When the Defendant testified as a witness in a lawsuit at the time of the original adjudication, in case where the Defendant made a statement contrary to his memory that “at the time of the survival of the original adjudication, the senior citizens and the Dog-ri were 17,18 years of age old and that he would have been able to repay the damage that was attached to the instant forest by solitary money,” and that the contents of the statement were consistent with objective facts, the perjury is established as long as he stated a fact contrary to his memory. Therefore, there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles on perjury. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)