beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. On May 16, 2016, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 5 in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Seoul, on May 16, 2016 at the court; (b) the said court’s 2015 high 338D as a witness of the case resulting from an indecent act by force against D; and (c) the presiding judge’s “the witness is the plane where the Defendant intends to enjoy the view of
1.3.5 Doesn Don Don Don Don Don.
The testimony is made and the presiding judge’s continuing to answer the case is the same as what the presiding judge intends to answer.
Merely,
I would like to see whether or not it has been.
In addition, Mason v. Syn’s flusium
I have examined the physical appearance of “I”.
In this regard, we have to do so, so we have to do so.
I examine the problem.
“The testimony was made.”
However, the fact that D had been trying to dance in line with the victim E's quantity, so the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and perjury.
2. Determination
A. Whether testimony of a witness in perjury constitutes a false statement contrary to his memory or not shall be understood as a whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure, rather than a simple Section of the testimony, and where the meaning of testimony in question is either unclear or diverse, it shall 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 leading up to the testimony in question, etc. In addition, if a witness’s statement is a legal evaluation of facts experienced or simple opinion is not sufficient, it shall not be deemed as a false statement in perjury, and if a witness’s opinion on objective facts is not merely a legal evaluation or a simple opinion, it shall not be deemed as a false statement in perjury, and if there is any error or inconsistency in the legal subjective evaluation or inconsistency with the witness’s opinion on objective facts.