[1] Where a report containing some false facts constitutes an offense of false accusation

[2] The case holding that in a case where a police officer: (a) assaulted a police officer Eul to arrest Eul as a flagrant offender and arrested Eul as a flagrant offender; and (b) filed a complaint against a police officer with illegal arrest on the ground that there was no interference with the police officer's arrest of a flagrant offender; and (c) filed a complaint against a police officer for an illegal arrest

[1] The crime of false accusation is established when a person reports false facts to a public office or a public official for the purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary punishment imposed upon another person. The term " false report" refers to a conclusive or dolusent recognition and reporting that a reported fact goes against objective facts. Therefore, even if a part of a reported fact is included in a false fact, if the false part is not an important part affecting the nature of a crime, but is merely an exaggeration of a reported fact, it does not constitute a crime of false accusation. However, if a part of a false fact is modified to the extent that it might interfere with the State's trial action or infringe legal stability of an individual who is not unfairly punished, it constitutes a crime of false accusation.

[2] The case holding that in a case where police officers: (a) assaulted Eul police officers to arrest Eul as a flagrant offender and arrested Eul as a flagrant offender; and (b) filed a complaint against Eul police officers for illegal arrest on the ground that Eul did not interfere with the police officers’ arresting duties in the act of committing an offense, the crime of false accusation is established

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7178 decided Jan. 16, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 373)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008No427 decided August 28, 2008

The part of the lower judgment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Eastern District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The crime of false accusation is established when a person reports false facts to a public office or a public official for the purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary punishment imposed upon another person. Here, the term " false facts" means the conclusive or dolusent recognition and reporting that reported facts are contrary to objective facts. Even if a part of reported facts is included in a false fact, if the false part is not an important part affecting the nature of a crime, but merely an exaggeration of reported facts, it does not constitute a crime of false accusation. However, if a part of a false fact is modified to the extent that it is likely to mislead the State's trial action or undermine the legal stability of an individual who is not unfairly punished, it may constitute a crime of false accusation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7178, Jan. 16, 2004; 2008Do3754, Aug. 21, 2008, etc.).

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the Defendant’s accusation against the Defendant is as follows: (a) the Defendant was arrested by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, etc. as a flagrant offender and obstructed the Defendant’s arrest of the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties; (b) the police officer did not illegally arrest the Defendant; (c) there was no interference with the Defendant when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who was the Defendant, attempted to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of injuring the Defendant; and (d) on the ground that the Co-Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 expressed why he would arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the lower court’s death and end, the Defendant Nonparty 1 and Nonindicted 2, respectively, prepared and submitted a letter of complaint stating that “The Defendant arrested the Defendant and arrested the Defendant by force, and by abusing his official authority

3. As to this, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted on the following grounds, and maintained it as it is.

According to the evidence, since the police officers dispatched to the main place at the time resisted against the arrest by Co-defendants in the court below, the number of police officers did not follow the arrest by Co-defendants in the court below. During that process, the defendant took to Nonindicted 2 of the police officer in order to stop the arrest of co-defendants in the court below, and the police officers dispatched to this point were arrested the defendant as an offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties on the ground that he interfered with the defendant's legitimate arrest duty, and then arrested the defendant as an offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and take them back to the defendant. As above, the co-defendant in the court below and the defendant were subject to pressure against the police officers, and the defendant suffered injury such as multi-sexual gambling, etc., the co-defendant in the court below is acknowledged to have suffered injury, such as the movement on the left part, the left part, the snow part, the

On the other hand, the summary of the complaint received by the defendant is that the police officers abused their authority to arrest co-defendants and the defendant, and the issue of whether the police officers abuse their authority includes legal issues and whether it is unlawful is ultimately determined by the judicial agency. Even if the defendant used the expression that the police officers abused their authority, it cannot be viewed as a statement of false facts on the ground of the statement of such facts. Furthermore, as seen earlier, insofar as it is acknowledged that the defendant suffered bodily injury from the police officers in the process of suppressing the police officers, it is difficult to view that the contents of the statement in the complaint were false, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the contents of the statement in the complaint were false facts, considering that the defendant did not interfere with the arrest of flagrant offenders, even if some of the contents of the statement in the complaint were entered differently, or somewhat exaggerated, due to the fact that the defendant obstructed the arrest of flagrant offenders.

4. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below as it is.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is recognized that the defendant, the police officer non-indicted 1 and non-indicted 2 et al. committed an assault to the police officer non-indicted 2 in order to prevent the defendant from arresting the defendant as a flagrant offender, and interfere with the police officer's performance of official duties. Thus, the accusation that there is no interference with the police officer's arrest of the co-defendant 2 in the court below is a false statement, and it is not an abuse of authority by the police officer, but an expression that is not an issue of judicial decision or an expression that cannot be regarded as a false statement. Further, even if it is recognized that the defendant suffered various bodily injury from the police officer in the process of suppressing the defendant from the police officer, it was generated in the process of arresting the defendant as a flagrant offender on the ground that the police officer interfered with the arrest of the defendant as a flagrant offender, and if the arrest of a flagrant offender was illegal, the arrest of a flagrant offender against the defendant is also unlawful, and the part of the defendant's punishment against the defendant's injury or violation of legal nature of the defendant's punishment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the contents stated in the complaint of this case do not constitute false facts shall not be deemed to constitute a false fact. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to false facts and by violating the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

5. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)