The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

1. On October 28, 2015, the Defendant appeared at the Seoul Central District Court located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul to take an oath as a witness of the case, such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant C in the Seocho-gu, Seoul.

On April 14, 2009, the Defendant testified that “A witness had several shares at the time of entering into a contract for stock transfer between D and E” to the question “I have 25 million shares.”

However, at the time, the defendant was only holding approximately KRW 8.5 million F's shares.

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

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, in the instant testimony process, the fact that the Defendant stated differently from the objective fact that “The witness held approximately KRW 8.5 million shares at the time of the conclusion of the contract between D and E,” as stated in the facts charged, although he actually held approximately KRW 8.5 million shares as stated in the facts charged.”

However, perjury is established by a witness who has taken an oath under law to make a statement contrary to his/her memory, so even if such statement is not consistent with objective facts, it cannot be readily concluded as perjury before examining whether it goes against the witness memory. In order to recognize a witness’s statement as a perjury, there should be proof that the contents of the statement can have a sufficient conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that it goes against the witness memory, and if that is not reached, it cannot be punished as perjury.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630 Decided March 27, 2014). Also, the overall purport of testimony is consistent with objective facts and is contrary to memory.