All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2024Do163 Decided March 19, 2026 【Malicious Perjury】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether a co-defendant, who is an accomplice, can become a witness regarding the facts charged against another co-defendant in the event that he or she no longer holds the status of a defendant due to the separation of legal proceedings (affirmative) Whether the current legal doctrine of the Supreme Court as to whether a co-defendant, an accomplice, has witness qualification regarding the facts charged against another co-defendant, in relation to the subject of perjury, should be maintained (affirmative) [2] In a case where the Defendant, who worked as a construction department manager of a construction company operated by Party A, was indicted together as an accomplice with Party A, the company operator, on charges of defrauding construction payments by submitting site photos manipulated by computer to the construction ordering body through the supervision team as if the construction had been performed according to the design drawings even though the construction was performed with a construction method different from the design drawings and then, in testifying as a witness regarding Party A, the other co-defendant, was indicted for committing perjury with the purpose to harm Party A by making false statements to the effect that Party A participated in the crime, by alleging that he or she received instructions from Party A to manipulate the site photos even though, in fact, he or she did not receive such instructions, and, in relation to the subject of such malicious perjury, the “witness qualification of the co-defendant, who is an accomplice,” was at issue, the case holding that the judgment of the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty by viewing that the defendant made false statements with the purpose to harm Party A, on the premise that the Defendant provided testimony regarding the facts charged against Party A while the legal proceedings for the Defendant and Party A were separated, was just | |
