The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The gist of the reasons for appeal is that C did not have any physical contact between D and C, even if there was no contact between C and D.

Therefore, the Defendant, who testified to this purport, did not perjury by making a false statement contrary to his memory.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was presented by the Defendant as a witness of the Defendant’s injury case No. 2015 and No. 5477, May 12, 2016, at the court of Changwon District Court 202, Jinju Branch Branch, 303, Jinju-si, Jinyang-si, 303, as a witness of the said court.

The Defendant testified to the effect that C did not have any physical contact between C and D, and that C had no physical contact.

However, the fact that C, at around 13:45 on May 29, 2015, was avoided by having D’s face from the front corridor No. 101, 409, E apartment building No. 101, 409, as seen earlier by the Defendant.

D There was a fact that the two descendants were involved.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the evidence and the final and conclusive judgment No. 2015 and No. 547, supra.

(c)

The direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is only D's testimony as the victim of the injury to the Defendant No. 547 of 2015 and No. 547, and the facts acknowledged in the final criminal judgment constitute a flexible evidence unless there are special circumstances. However, it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the final criminal judgment in light of the contents of other evidence submitted in the relevant trial.

If it is recognized, it can be rejected (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7655 delivered on December 8, 2005, etc.), and it can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court.