The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) was asked by the Defendant, “The Department of Education, Science and Technology provided a written application for coal submitted to the Department of Education in lieu of the faculty council’s written opinion,” and by the Department of Planning and Department H, it is necessary (the part recorded in the facts charged) to provide the J reporters with opinions and materials through H, a planning director.”

The former part is without involvement by the Defendant, and the latter part is not directly processed, so the Defendant testified to the entire part of the question at issue that “The part is at the risk of being easily ambiguous because it became aware of the response by the Defendant,” and this does not constitute a false testimony contrary to memory.

The defendant's testimony "K, L, and M among the members of the disciplinary committee" (hereinafter referred to as "second testimony") is merely the defendant appointed K, etc. and did not recommend it, and it does not constitute a false testimony contrary to memory.

Whether a witness’s testimony is a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, not by the simple Section of the testimony. If the meaning of the testimony is unclear or multi-dimensionally understandable, the meaning of the testimony should be determined clearly after considering the ordinary meaning and usage of the 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252 Decided December 27, 2001, etc.). In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the grounds of conviction, the first testimony is false contrary to memory.