[1] Whether a witness in an accusation case's false statement about an investigative agency's prosecution constitutes a false crime (negative), and the method of determining whether a witness's statement is based on an investigative agency's prosecution (negative)

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant, who is the drawer of a check, falsely reported the forgery of a check for which payment was presented to the bank and an employee of a bank who is unaware of the fact that the check was falsified, files an accusation with an investigation agency, and the defendant appeared in the police and made a statement to identify a specific person, the defendant shall be deemed to have voluntarily reported false facts

[1] A report in the crime of false accusation shall be made voluntarily, and a false statement made by an investigative agency, etc. with respect to an indictment does not constitute a crime of false accusation. However, whether a statement by a witness was made by an investigative agency, etc. shall be determined by taking into account the developments leading up to the investigation, the facts suspected of the investigation and the relevance of the statement by a witness.

[2] The case holding that in case where an employee of a bank who is the drawer of a check files a false report on the forgery of a check for which payment was presented to the bank, and then files a criminal investigation with the investigative agency, and the defendant appears in the police and made a statement to identify a specific person, the defendant should file a criminal complaint with the investigative agency using the bank members who are obligated to file a criminal charge under Article 7 of the Illegal Check Control Act as an instrument for the forgery of a check, and then the investigative agency should be deemed to have filed a false report with the investigative agency on his/her own.

[1] Article 156 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 156 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do2652 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1012) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6293 Delivered on February 8, 2002

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2004No908 Decided April 28, 2005

The non-guilty part of the judgment below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Northern District Court.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the victim’s statement was made to the investigative agency for the purpose of having the victim file a false accusation against the non-indicted 2 with the above non-indicted 3. Even if the victim did not know of the above facts, the victim’s statement was made to the court below for the purpose of using the above non-indicted 2’s false statement. The victim’s statement was made to the non-indicted 3 with the same investigative agency for the purpose of using the above non-indicted 2’s false statement, and the victim’s statement was made to the non-indicted 3 with the same investigative agency for the purpose of using the non-indicted 2’s false statement, and thus, the victim’s statement was made to the non-indicted 2 for the purpose of using the above non-indicted 3’s false statement to the non-indicted 3. The court below found that the non-indicted 2’s statement was false and thus, the victim’s statement was made to the non-indicted 2 for the purpose of using the above non-indicted 3’s statement.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

The report in the crime of false accusation must be made voluntarily, and the false statement made by an investigation agency, etc. does not constitute a crime of false accusation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6293, Feb. 8, 2002, etc.). However, whether a statement by a witness was made by an investigation agency, etc. should be determined by considering the background leading up to the investigation, the relevance between the facts suspected of the investigation and the statement by a witness.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendant filed a false report on the fact that the check of this case was forged by Non-indicted 1 with the court below, and even though the court below made a false statement on the part of the defendant's non-indicted 1 to the defendant's name, the investigation of this case was commenced by filing a criminal charge against the police as to the article above of the check of this case, and the defendant was present at the police as a witness to the crime of forgery of the check of this case. On the other hand, Article 7 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that when a person working at a financial institution discovers a forged number of checks in the course of his duties, he shall file a criminal charge within 48 hours, and if the defendant did not file a criminal charge against the bank, it shall be subject to criminal punishment. Thus, if the court below filed a false report on the forgery of the check of this case against the bank of this case against the defendant, and the defendant appears in the police and made a false statement on the category of the victim as a witness to the investigation agency, then it shall not be viewed the defendant's name and process.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's act does not constitute a false accusation on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the report of false accusation, and it is obvious that such illegality has influenced the judgment.

3. Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)