Government of Home Affairs

[Attachment-gu, Namyang-si]

At around 00 on November 22, 2007, the Defendant appeared as a witness of a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. ( native Affairs) against the above court 2007Kadan0000 in the main court No. 000 of Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, a 00 Suwon District Court No. 000, the Defendant took an oath.

The Defendant testified to the effect that the instant case was an “scopon and sent it to Park○○○,” which is a judge of the instant court’s criminal case 0 single-scopon.

However, on August 5, 2006, the Defendant found a philopon purchased from ○○ to 1 million won at the cargo delivery office located in the Seoul Station and delivered it to Gab○○. On October 9, 2006, the Defendant received one million won from Dolopon from Gab○○○, and then sought a philopon from 2006 around October 11, 2006.

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

2. Determination

A. "A witness who has taken an oath in accordance with an Act" under Article 152 (1) of the Criminal Act means a witness who has taken an oath in accordance with the procedure stipulated by the Act, and the examination of the witness must be made lawfully in compliance with the procedural provisions stipulated by the Act. On the other hand, the Criminal Procedure Act has a system for the right to refuse to give testimony instead of a statement in certain cases for a witness who bears the duty to attend the court and take an oath and state sworn facts despite that he/she is not a litigation procedure. In full view of the significance and protection of perjury, the contents of the examination procedure for witness examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the purport of the right to refuse to give testimony, etc., comprehensively examining the meaning of perjury and the legal interests of the witness prescribed by the Act in the examination procedure, the right to refuse to give testimony may not be punished as perjury, even if a witness makes a false statement, on the ground that he/she does not constitute “a witness who has taken an oath under the Act, and cannot be punished as perjury.”

B. We examine the facts charged of this case.

According to the defendant's statement in the court, Suwon District Court 2007Kadan000, the bill of indictment, the copy of the protocol of trial, and the copy of the witness examination protocol (Fourthly), 1. Park○○ was conspired with the defendant on September 6, 2007, 2007, 2007, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 3.00, and 6.0, 3.0,000, 6.0,000, 20,000,000, 6.0,000, 2,00,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

As above, as to whether the defendant's testimony was purchased from this 00 as well as the fact that the defendant was not a person handling narcotics, the defendant's testimony was judged as the defendant's case concerning the purchase of phiphones at the time of this time, and thus, there is a concern that the defendant may be convicted of the defendant with a content concerning the determination of whether the defendant was guilty or not in the future or widely criminal form (or the contents of the defendant's testimony are about the receipt of unclaimed phiphones, etc.). As such, even if the defendant's refusal of testimony occurred without the presiding judge's notice of the right to refuse testimony, the defendant's refusal of testimony was made without the defendant's notification of the right to refuse testimony, and even if the defendant's request for refusal of testimony made a false testimony, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's right to refuse testimony was not notified of the right to refuse testimony of this case due to the fact that the defendant could not have been notified of the right to refuse testimony.

C. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be punished for perjury because he/she does not constitute a witness who has taken an oath under the law, which constitutes a constituent element of perjury. Thus, the Defendant acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.