The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant deposited KRW 65 million into the Defendant’s corporate financial account in 56896 lawsuit (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) by the Seoul Central District Court 2013 at the Seoul Central District Court 56896 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) at the request of the Defendant’s corporate financial institution to cancel the contract; (b) it is true that the Defendant was paid KRW 65 million by the Defendant’s corporate financial institution.”

The testimony "" (hereinafter referred to as "the testimony of this case") was formally deposited in the deposit account of social welfare foundation D (former name before the change: Social Welfare Foundation N). However, the defendant's investigation was conducted in a situation where there is no adequate grounds for accounting of the above amount, and thus, the above amount cannot be deemed to have been deposited in the D's deposit account as the return of the purchase price following the cancellation of the contract, and the purport of denying the deposit itself is not to deny the fact of the payment itself.

Therefore, the testimony of this case cannot be deemed as a false statement contrary to the defendant's memory, and perjury is not established since the defendant had no criminal intent of perjury.

2. Determination:

A. The false statement in perjury is not an objective fact but an objective fact is not a false, i.e., a fact that goes against memory, that is, a fact that is contrary to memory, and even if the defendant testified in a conclusive manner as if he well aware of the fact, it is against memory (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do114, Feb. 28, 1984; 85Do868, Aug. 20, 1985; 86Do57, Sept. 9, 1986). (b) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court and the appellate court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant was under the transfer system from H, a former representative of D at the time of the testimony of this case.