[위증][집38(1)형,642;공1990.4.15.(870),825]
(a) The number of crimes in which the witness who has taken an oath makes a false statement concerning several facts on the same date;
B. Whether the presiding judge's notification of the defendant's right to refuse to testify should also be stated in the facts constituting a perjury (negative)
(c) Whether false statements are related to facts requiring proof or affect the judgment, and whether perjury has been issued
A. Even where a person who has taken an oath once as a witness with respect to a single case makes a false representation contrary to memory as to multiple facts on the same date, it shall be deemed that he/she continues to make a single criminal intent and constitutes a single perjury by combining it, and it shall not be deemed that each statement constitutes a single perjury.
B. When the court clearly specifies the facts charged on the grounds of conviction against the facts charged as to the perjury, it is not necessary for the presiding judge of the relevant case who has given the perjury to describe the facts that the defendant may refuse to testify because he falls under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
C. Perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath pursuant to an Act makes a false public testimony. Whether the content of perjury is related to the facts requiring proof of the relevant case, or whether it affects the conclusion of the judgment, is irrelevant to the establishment of perjury.
(b)Article 152(a) of the Criminal Code; Article 37(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Article 323(1);
C. Supreme Court Decision 85Do2650 Decided March 24, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 88Do350 Decided May 24, 1988
Defendant 1 and two others
Prosecutor (Defendant 1) and Defendant 2 and 3
Attorney Han-won (Attorney Han-won, Counsel for defendant 2)
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No6887 delivered on May 11, 1989
All appeals are dismissed.
1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor
Perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath pursuant to law makes a false testimony contrary to the purport of an oath. As such, even if a person who has taken an oath once as a witness with respect to a single case makes a false testimony contrary to memory as to several facts on the same date, he/she shall be deemed to have continuously made a false testimony as a single criminal intent, and shall not be deemed to constitute a single perjury, and each statement shall not be deemed to constitute a single perjury.
On the contrary, the court below held that the defendant 1 was acquitted by the Panel Division of the Seoul District Criminal Court, and the above defendant constitutes one perjury, including the facts of perjury for which the judgment became final and conclusive on June 10, 1986. Thus, the judgment of acquittal of the above defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a final and conclusive judgment, is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the number of perjury, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment of the court below. There is no reason to argue.
2. Determination on Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal
According to relevant evidence and records, before Defendant 2 takes an oath as a witness in the litigation proceedings of the Seoul Criminal Court 81 High Court 84No3250 case and the Seoul District Court 84No3250 case and the Seoul District Court 84No116 case, it can be recognized that the presiding judge of the case explained that the above defendant may refuse to testify because he falls under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, when the court recognizes and declares a sentence as guilty, it is not necessary that the presiding judge of the case where the defendant gives the above evidence should state the facts that the defendant could refuse to testify because he falls under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no need to state the facts that the presiding judge of the case where the defendant gives the above evidence in question falls under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the court below's failure to properly
3. Determination on Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal
If the evidence admitted by the court below is examined by comparison with the records, the facts of perjury of the above defendant in this case can be sufficiently recognized, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law or inconsistency with the rules of evidence which misleads the facts against the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation like the theory of lawsuit, and perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath under the law makes a false public offering, and whether the contents of perjury affect the facts of the relevant case or the judgment does not have any relation with the establishment of perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do2650, Mar. 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Do350, May 24, 1988); therefore, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to perjury, such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below. Ultimately, there is no reason to see all the arguments.
4. Therefore, all of the appeals filed by the prosecutor against Defendant 1 and the appeals filed by Defendants 2 and 3 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)