증언거부권불고지와 허위증언에 대한 위증죄

Case1 and Case2 is not proper because they made a judgement of perjury according to 'practical obstacle' which was a ambiguous standard of judgement, when the witness was not informed of the Right to Refuse to Testify. So if we examine the problem whether the main agent of perjury is accepted or not, it is not accepted if the process of the oath of the witness is false, not the process of the examination of the witness according to the article 156 on the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the faults of the process of the oath of the witness do not exist in these Cases, the main agent of perjury is accepted. And then, we examine the problem whether the expectation-possibility is accepted, or not. In the case like Case1, if the witness passes up the chace of the Right to Refuse to Testify and gives false testmony notwithstanding his Right, the perjury is accepted naturally. But, In the cases like Case2 and Case3, if the witness is not informed of the Right to Refuse to Testify, he is blocked to the legal act, so the expectation-possibility of the legal act does not exist, the perjury is not accepted. Therefore, It is necessary that the accurate code should be regulated on the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is desirable that the notice of the Right to Refuse to Testify before the oath of the witness should be regulated on the Code of Criminal Procedure, and if the rule is not observated, the main agent of perjury should be rejected because he is not 'the witness who have taken lawful oath', methodologically.