a statement as if the specialized facts were directly observed, and a false public notice;

In perjury, a false notarial deed refers to a statement contrary to the witness memory, and its falsity is determined on the basis of the experience of a subjective witness. If a witness stated as if he/she had been aware of the fact after witnessing, it constitutes a false notarial deed contrary to memory as to the circumstances of experience.

Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do105 Delivered on September 14, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 4288Do89 Delivered on July 8, 1955

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 83No392,1801 delivered on December 9, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at around 14:00 on April 10, 1981, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant took an oath as a witness of the case of the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration between the defendant and the 81dan549 of the same court in Daegu District Court No. 6 of the Daegu District Court, and the defendant's employer participated in the contract at the time of the plaintiff's orchard on March 2, 1979. The contract place was entered into in the contract place, the witness entered into the contract, and the witness entered into the contract, the real estate (three lots) other than the real estate (three lots) entered in the contract and entered into three lots without any fact, and the real estate was already disposed of at least 10 years prior to its memory."

2. The false notarial deed in perjury refers to a statement contrary to the witness memory. Whether it is false is determined on the basis of the experience of a witness subjectively perceived by the witness, and if the witness stated as if he had been aware of the fact after witnessing, it constitutes a false notarial deed contrary to his memory as to the background of experience.

According to the evidence employed by the court below, although the defendant arranged a sales contract between the plaintiff employmentr and the defendant employmentr of the above civil case, there is no direct participation in the conclusion of the contract, and even though the contents of the contract are heard from the above employmentr as a party or became aware of the contract after the conclusion of the contract, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement against his memory as if he participated in the contract and became aware of the contract after the conclusion of the contract, and even if examining the process of the evidence preparation, it is without merit in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)