Whether a crime of false accusation is established in a case where false information reported to a public office is an offense subject to victim's complaint, and it is obvious by the content itself that the period of complaint has expired (negative)

Even though a person reported false facts to a public office for the purpose of having a criminal punishment imposed upon him, in case where such facts are subject to prosecution after the lapse of the period of filing a complaint against the victim subject to prosecution, and it is evident in accordance with the contents of the complaint itself, the crime of false accusation is not established.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do230 delivered on March 24, 1970 (Gong18-1, 49), Supreme Court Decision 81Do2617 delivered on March 23, 1982 (Gong1982, 483), Supreme Court Decision 84Do2919 delivered on May 28, 1985 (Gong1985, 964), Supreme Court Decision 93Do3445 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194, 1045), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1908 delivered on December 5, 195 (Gong196, 318)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 97No2395 delivered on November 25, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if a person reported false facts to a public office for the purpose of having a criminal punishment imposed upon him/her, if the facts were to be subject to prosecution after the period for filing a complaint against the crime subject to prosecution expires, and it is evident by the contents of the report itself, the pertinent public office’s duties shall not be affected by the crime subject to prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do3445, Feb. 8, 1994; 84Do2919, May 28, 1985).

In the same purport, the court below prepared and accepted a letter of complaint stating that "the defendant committed rape once from April 23, 1995 to June 1995 by the non-indicted 4 and five times from that time" at the public service center of the Ansan Police Station around January 23, 1997 that "the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted 5 were involved in rape." The crime reported by the defendant is an offense subject to prosecution within six months from that time when the defendant becomes aware of the offense subject to prosecution. However, if there are force majeure reasons which prevent the defendant from filing a complaint, it shall be calculated from the day when the reason ceases to exist." Since the defendant stated in the complaint "the non-indicted 1 was the same elementary school." The defendant becomes aware of the fact that the defendant was the offender of the crime of rape, and the court below did not have any effect on the defendant's duty of rape after the lapse of six months from that time when the defendant became aware of the crime of rape, and it does not clearly affect the defendant's duty to punish the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)