The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, along with the members of the mountain conference, tried to avoid the face of C, the president of C, who is the head of C, and attempted to escape from drinking in the way that he/she goes through the mountain conference, due to the fact that he/she would pay a fine in accordance with the meeting rules between the general affairs of the mountain conference and the general affairs of the mountain conference. Thus, the testimony as stated in the facts charged in the instant case against C in the Defendant’s assault against C does not constitute perjury, since he/she stated the truth according to his/her memory, it does not constitute perjury.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

C (1936) was the case in which the Defendant filed a complaint with his own assault, from the time when the police was examined by the Defendant, to the original trial court of this case, the Defendant made a consistent statement to the effect that “In order to make an objection with a large voice from the point near the place of general affairs of the mountain conference as a matter of fine imposition, the Defendant “I am Do Do Do Do n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

(b) Accordingly, the statement was made to the effect that it conforms to C’s statement, consistent with FIOD and D’s total number of mountain conferences that were sitting before the front place of the bus operation. D.

On the other hand, I stated that "I was seated behind the bus at the time, but C was now leaving the arms in the future. C was unable to see who was seated or that it was fit for the defendant." It was difficult for I, who was seated behind the bus, to properly witness the circumstances of this case that occurred in the D place on the side of the bus.