The defendant shall be innocent.

On April 15, 2010, the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness of the case at the Daejeon-dong Daejeon District Court, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, as a witness of the case.

The Defendant testified to the defense counsel’s question, “I do not know that I had any personal work more than 90 million won without connection with the work of the D company, and that I had received the industrial accident insurance proceeds of the total amount of 90 million won or more in the course of the work as if the accident occurred and received it falsely.” The Defendant testified to the counsel’s question, “I do not have to have received any occupational accident of the D company, which is 90 million won or more,” and “I have never received any job accident of the 90 million won.”

However, the Defendant received industrial accident insurance money of at least 95,017,340 won in a false way even though the occurrence of a traffic accident during personal service is not an occupational accident.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Judgment

1. Although the Defendant stated the facts as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not make a false statement, as he stated the Defendant’s memory at the time of testimony.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is established when a witness makes a statement contrary to memory as to the facts that he/she has taken an oath pursuant to the law. If the witness’s statement is a legal evaluation or simple opinion on the facts that he/she experienced, it cannot be deemed as a false public offering referred to in perjury. Moreover, perjury is not established even if the witness’s legal and subjective evaluation or opinion on the objective facts that he/she experienced is somewhat wrong or contradictory.

In addition, whether the witness's testimony is false in contravention of memory or not shall be the only part of the testimony.