Uijeongbu Attorney Consultation | Assisting a Client Involved in Perjury and Defending With a Fine

Perjury is an offense committed when a witness who has been sworn in accordance with the law makes a false statement.

A witness summoned by the court swears, before testifying, “I swear to speak the truth as it is, without concealment or addition, according to my conscience, and to accept the penalty for perjury if I tell any lie.”

Perjury is committed when a witness who has taken this oath makes a false statement, and the witness may be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 10 million won.

If a person commits perjury with the intent to harm a defendant, suspect, or person subject to disciplinary action in a criminal or disciplinary case, that person may be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Even if the false testimony did not affect the court's judgment, perjury is committed if there is a statement of facts contrary to the witness's own memory.

In a perjury case, a finding of no charge may be made where the alleged facts are not recognized or where there is insufficient evidence.

The Uijeongbu attorney argued that the client did not intentionally distort the testimony or attempt to provide false facts.

At the time, the client made the statement in an emotionally agitated state, which resulted in the testimony not matching the actual facts.

The Uijeongbu attorney emphasized that the client did not deliberately distort the facts.

The Uijeongbu attorney argued that about 10 years had already passed since the point at which the client testified in court.

It is not easy to say that one has a clear memory even of events that occurred only a year or two ago.

The Uijeongbu attorney also pointed out that, regarding a statement about events from as long as 10 years ago, there was no proof that the client had genuinely made a statement contrary to his memory.

The Uijeongbu attorney emphasized that it would be unfair to find that the client had made a statement contrary to his recollection merely because the client's testimony differed from the contract in this case.