The meaning of “report” in the crime of false accusation / Whether making a false statement in the process of an interrogation agency, etc. constitutes a false accusation (negative), and the standard for determining whether a statement by a witness was made by an investigative agency, etc.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1953 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 186) Supreme Court Decision 95Do2652 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1012) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3203 Delivered on December 22, 2005 (Gong2006Sang, 196)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Dong, South and North, Attorney Kim Jong-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013No203 Decided April 5, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In the crime of false accusation, a report shall be made voluntarily by an investigative agency, etc., and a false statement made by an investigative agency, etc. does not constitute an accusation. However, if a fact not entered in the initial accusation is voluntarily made at the investigative agency when it receives a supplementary protocol for accusation of a complaint, it shall be deemed that the part of the statement has been made (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2652, Feb. 9, 1996, etc.). Whether a statement by a witness is made by an investigative agency, etc. shall be determined by taking into account the following: (a) the developments leading up to an investigation; (b) the question by an investigative agency; (c) the form and content of an answer; and (d) the relevance between the facts charged in an investigation and the statement by a witness (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3203, Dec. 22, 2005, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, ① on February 23, 2011, when the Defendant accused Non-Indicted 1’s share in the building (location omitted), Non-Indicted 1’s transfer registration was the object of the complaint. Non-Indicted 1’s share in the instant land was not mentioned in the complaint. ② However, during the police interrogation process on March 23, 201, Non-Indicted 1’s share in the instant land as well as the instant building, Non-Indicted 1 stated that the transfer registration was completed with the consent of the Defendant, and Non-Indicted 2 also stated to the effect that “Non-Indicted 1 was known that the Defendant transferred his share in the instant land to Non-Indicted 1 upon Non-Indicted 1’s request, and Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2’s statement to the effect that Non-Indicted 1’s share in the instant land were transferred to Non-Indicted 1’s police station and that Non-Indicted 1’s share in the instant land were not mentioned in Seoul High Prosecutor’s consent.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficient to view the Defendant as “report” in the crime of false accusation, since the Defendant clearly expressed that Nonindicted 1 filed a complaint regarding the part related to the instant land through the Defendant’s statement made on May 2, 2011. Furthermore, even if the part related to the instant land was not included in the initial accusation and Nonindicted 1 first taken place, it cannot be deemed as constituting “report” in the crime of false accusation, rather than leading the Defendant at the time of Nonindicted 1’s statement made on May 2, 2011, rather than leading the Defendant to the said statement, the Defendant appears to have responded to the Defendant at his/her own will. As such, the Defendant’s statement cannot be deemed as having led to the investigation agency’s execution.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the above statement of the defendant does not merely constitute a case where a voluntary report is made to an investigative agency for the purpose of having another person punished by a criminal punishment. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of false accusation as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is that the court below erred in finding facts and found the defendant guilty, although the statement of the defendant under the facts charged in this case is not false.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence, which are the premise thereof, belong to the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court unless they exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In light of the records, even after examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, there is no reason to believe that the lower court’s fact-finding exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules. Therefore, the aforementioned allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)