The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) alleged that the Defendant had no testimony of false facts contrary to memory, but all L/F’s statements seem consistent with the Defendant’s defense counsel are not reliable.

F was present as a witness at the court of civil cases (hereinafter “related cases”) stated in the facts charged against the Defendant in the facts charged by the Defendant, and the Defendant, AE on April 3, 2012, and the G was only H, I, and G with a thickness of H, I, and G, and the G would pay the construction cost directly.

Viewing to talk about.

It is clear that the Defendant’s statement to the same effect as F’s statement is also false, since F was prosecuted for perjury with respect to the false testimony, and F was led by the Prosecutor’s Office to confession the criminal facts of perjury.

On the other hand, the complainant G consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that there was no fact that the defendant had delivered the defendant around April 3, 2012, and that there was no oral contract between the defendant (C Co., Ltd. and the defendant (hereinafter “C”) and D (Gu M). The statement is credibility.

Comprehensively taking account of G’s statements and the remaining evidence, the fact that the Defendant made a statement contrary to memory as stated in the facts charged is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that accepted the defendant's legal counsel and acquitted all of the charges of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is established when a witness who has taken an oath under the law makes a statement contrary to his/her memory, and such statement does not conform to objective facts.

Even if it is against the witness memory, it cannot be determined that it is a perjury before examining whether it is against the witness memory.

In addition, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which can lead a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and such proof is insufficient.