Judgment on whether testimony of a witness is false or false

Whether a witness's testimony is false or false in contravention of his memory should be judged by grasping the whole of the testimony in the examination procedure concerned as a whole, not just because the witness's testimony is based on the simple framework of his testimony.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do64 delivered on March 22, 1983, 86Do2584 delivered on February 10, 1987, and 87Do27 delivered on March 24, 1987, and 87Do1780 delivered on October 13, 1987

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant (1) and Prosecutor

Attorney Han Han-hun

Daejeon District Court Decision 87No638 delivered on December 24, 1987

The conviction part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant et al. guilty on the ground that the defendant et al.'s attempted fraud among the facts charged in this case against the defendant et al. did not believe that the defendant et al.'s testimony of the defendant et al., which corresponds to the part of the facts charged, was not trusted compared to the witness Kim Jong-il's testimony and Kim Jong-sik's testimony, and that the defendant 2 lent money to the school foundation through the defendant 1 and received the loan certificate from the defendant Kim Chang-soo who was the complainant's defendant et al. at that time, and that there was no proof of a crime as to the attempted fraud, the court below found the above facts-finding of the court below and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory

The appeal by the prosecutor is not acceptable.

2. Judgment on Defendant 1’s appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant 1 to have proved that the defendant 1 testified on the instrument of borrowing and delivery of the instrument of borrowing money from the defendant 2 to the defendant 54 million won on six occasions at the time when the defendant was in office as the chief director of the foundation, and delivered the instrument of borrowing and the promissory note, regardless of the fact that the defendant gave testimony on the instrument of borrowing and delivery of the instrument of borrowing money to the defendant 2 at the bill of borrowing each time of borrowing money.

However, whether the witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple composition of the testimony (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do27, Mar. 24, 1987). The question of the question of the case where Defendant 1 testified is whether the Foundation borrowed 54 million won or more over six times from Defendant 2 to Defendant 2 when the witness is the chief director of the foundation. If the witness's testimony is consistent with objective truth in its important part, it is obvious that it belongs to the closing team of a bill or loan certificate prepared by the creditor at that time when the witness's testimony was made to the effect that it is consistent with the objective truth. The question of whether the witness's name was written in the bill or loan certificate prepared by the creditor at that time, and it is hard to say that the defendant made a testimony contrary to objective truth and that it is consistent with the intention of converging such testimony immediately.

In this case, the Defendant’s testimony was made by a mistake, and immediately after the completion of testimony, and the testimony was made, and the fact that the testimony of the witness and objective facts are different from those of the witness to the extent that the testimony of the court, which made the witness witness examination, is the fact that the testimony of the witness and the objective facts are different, cannot be said to be said to have been acknowledged as having been erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of perjury or without any clear evidence. The arguments on this point are with merit.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the crime of perjury against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)