The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the facts constituting the crime stated in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment (legal scenario and mistake of facts) the Defendant testified that he was completely aware of the name of E, but corrected the statement that he was aware that he was N orO by rhizing his memory before the examination of the witness is completed. Since the Defendant was unaware of E, it does not constitute perjury if the corrected statement is based on the corrected statement.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of perjury and by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Regarding the facts constituting the crimes listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant testified that H was not able to take a bath because H was unable to take a bath against D because H did not take a bath (b). However, it was true that D was not aware that H did not have taken a sexual assault against H. However, since I was bound to consider that “I was “I promptly reported” and it was the defendant’s testimony (c) and the defendant did not give a testimony contrary to memory, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. (i) Whether the testimony of a witness is false or false in relation to the facts constituting the crime as stated in paragraph (a) of the judgment of the court below should be determined by grasping the whole testimony in the relevant examination procedure as a whole instead of the simple Section of the witness's testimony, and if the meaning of the testimony in question can be understood either in itself or in a multilateral way, the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, and the circumstances during which the testimony was made should be considered, and the meaning of the testimony in question should be clearly determined after clarifying it.

Dor. The records of this case