Requirements for establishing perjury

Since perjury is established by a witness who has taken an oath under law to make a statement contrary to his/her memory, even if his/her statement is inconsistent with objective facts, it shall not be said that the testimony is a perjury before examining whether it goes against the witness memory.

Article 152 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Do1549 Delivered on August 29, 1972

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No3586 delivered on December 18, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. According to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant was present at the court of first instance at around 14:00 on September 30, 1981 in Suwon District Court No. 1 in the above court of Suwon District Court No. 81Na93 and taken an oath as a witness of the lawsuit demanding cancellation of registration of initial ownership preservation, etc., and the above woodland was proved that the deceased non-indicted 1 was the personal property of the person under certain circumstances, and that the defendant was guilty of a false official testimony because he testified that he was disadvantageous to the name of the person under certain circumstances, and that the testimony made by the defendant was inconsistent with the objective facts, and therefore the testimony made by the defendant is therefore the perjury.

2. Reviewing the records, it is proper that the court below held that the non-indicted 1, who was the original owner of the forest of this case, and the deceased non-indicted 1, who was the deceased non-indicted 1, who was the witness as the witness of the defendant, are separate figures from each other, and therefore, the above testimony of the defendant, which the two persons are the same, is the witness against the objective facts, and there is no violation of law such as incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence. There is no ground to discuss this issue.

3. However, perjury is established when a witness who has taken an oath under law makes a statement contrary to his/her memory. Thus, even if such statement is inconsistent with objective facts, it shall not be subject to perjury until such testimony is examined as to whether it goes against the witness memory.

In this case, the testimony of the defendant is not consistent with objective facts as mentioned above, but it is doubtful whether the defendant had become aware of such testimony through direct experience, i.e., whether the defendant had become aware of such testimony through direct experience, or whether the defendant became aware of such indirect methods as prior hearing from another person without such testimony, etc., is not examined in the witness examination protocol. However, according to records, the deceased non-indicted 1 at issue in the above testimony can be seen as a person who died at around 1927. Thus, the defendant born on September 11, 1943 cannot be seen as having been aware of the above deceased's name or property relation, and it cannot be known from others through indirect methods such as prior hearing. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the circumstances that the defendant became aware of the above testimony, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby maintaining the objective facts of perjury and failing to reach the judgment of the court below, which should have determined that the testimony was unlawful.

It is reasonable to argue about this point.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)