[1] The method of determining whether testimony in perjury is a false statement contrary to memory, and the method of determining whether testimony is false or not in a case where the meaning of testimony is unclear or it can be understood differently

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the testimony cannot be viewed as a false statement

[1] Whether a witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by comprehensively considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances in which the testimony was made, etc., and the meaning of the testimony should be clearly determined after clarifying the following, in cases where the meaning of the testimony in question can be understood in itself or in a multilateral way.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the testimony cannot be viewed as a false statement

[1] Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do935 delivered on December 6, 198 (Gong1989, 121) Supreme Court Decision 93Do104 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2203) Supreme Court Decision 95Do2864 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1324)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorney Park Chang-tae

Ulsan District Court Decision 2001No368 delivered on September 7, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Whether a witness's testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be judged by understanding the whole of the testimony during the examination procedure concerned as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the witness's testimony. If the meaning of the testimony in question is unclear or multi-dimensionally understandable, the meaning of the testimony in question should be determined clearly after considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances during which the testimony was made, etc.

2. According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant, who was an employee of the Daegu branch of the non-indicted corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "the above company"), supplied cosmetics to the son who had no business registration certificate as of December 23, 1991, and the son, who became the plaintiff and raised the above company as the defendant at the time and place in the Daegu District Court 98Gahap4567, which was held in the judgment of the court below, stated that "the witness supplied the goods to the plaintiff without the business registration certificate nor with the cancelled business registration certificate, while the defendant supplied the goods to the plaintiff with the goods."

Examining the above meaning of the defendant's testimony in light of the records: ① the defendant stated that he supplied cosmetic to son on December 1991 before giving the above testimony; ② on December 23, 1991, the defendant discontinued cosmetic agencies operated before son was without a business registration certificate; thus, the defendant supplied cosmetics to son in advance in accordance with the above agreement and then arranged cosmetics with the intention of arranging cosmetics with new registration as a business registration certificate later; ② on January 8, 1992 after supply, the defendant did not deliver a copy of this agreement to son to this effect that it was difficult to view this 'the above cosmetic agent' as the date of the above 'the cosmetic agent' on December 25, 1991, which was the last 192 supply of cosmetics to this 'the date of 199 years after supply'.

Therefore, the above statement of the defendant cannot be deemed to be a false statement contrary to objective facts and memory, and the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any error of law as to the falsity of the statement in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. The court below rejected the defendant's testimony as to the question of the defendant's representative's "e.g., the Eul evidence No. 6 (Agreement on Trade) was prepared for tax return at the beginning of the transaction again, and Eul evidence No. 9 (Transaction No. 9) was written in detail with the plaintiff's transaction with the plaintiff, and then asked the plaintiff's representative's "w does not have the plaintiff's seal attached to Eul evidence No. 9" at the cross-examination, "I do not have the plaintiff's opinion." The issue's "Transaction No. 9" (Evidence No. 9) is stated in the above company's specification based on the transaction statement, and it cannot be viewed as a document which goes through the settlement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, unless there are any special circumstances, and it is hard to conclude that the defendant's testimony cannot be viewed as the defendant's testimony in light of the above legal principles and the above statement of accounts by calculating the plaintiff's appearance of transaction with the above company's non-party No. 9 and the above statement of accounts.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)