[위증][미간행]
[1] Where a witness who has taken an oath makes a false statement contrary to memory as to various facts on the same date, the number of crimes of perjury (=general crime) and the scope of res judicata effect
[2] The number of crimes of perjury in a case where several false statements are made while the first oath is maintained as a witness at a different date for pleading in the same instance
[1] Articles 37 and 152 of the Criminal Act, Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 37 and 152 of the Criminal Act, Articles 247 (2) and 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do3340 delivered on April 14, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1418) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do60 Delivered on March 25, 2005
Defendant
Prosecutor
Law Firm Bull, Attorney Seo Jong-chul et al.
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005No3582 Decided December 6, 2006
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In a case where a witness who has taken an oath once made a false statement contrary to memory as to various facts on the same day, this constitutes one perjury by continuing to make a false statement by one criminal intent, and it does not constitute several perjurys. Thus, in a case where a judgment on perjury is finalized due to another false statement made on the same day as the day when the false statement in the relevant case was made, even though the part which was made a false statement in the previous facts charged is different from the part which was made a false statement in the relevant facts charged, the res judicata effect of the final judgment in the previous case is excessive in the relevant case, and the relevant perjury part shall be acquitted (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do340, Apr. 14, 1998).
Furthermore, even if several false statements are made by different dates for pleading in the same instance as in the administrative litigation case, they constitute one perjury as long as they testified after maintaining the validity of the first oath (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do60, Mar. 25, 2005).
In light of the above legal principles, it is justifiable that the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal on the facts charged of this case that the testimony on the date of the first pleading of this case and the third pleading of pleading of this case is false statements on the ground that the testimony on the third pleading of pleading of this case was not found innocent, and there is no violation of law
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)