Perjury with Intent to Harm Another (Mohae Perjury) | A Supreme Court Decision Redefining the Standards for the Competency of an Accomplice Co-Defendant as a Witness and for the Establishment of Perjury

Among acts of making false statements in court, perjury with intent to harm another (mohae perjury) is an offense that is established when, beyond merely making a statement contrary to the facts, the conduct is combined with the purpose of causing another person to be subjected to criminal punishment or to an adverse disposition.

It is evaluated as one degree more serious than ordinary perjury and is treated as a grave offense that infringes upon the fairness of criminal trials and the discovery of substantive truth.

In particular, when a false statement is made in an accomplice case or a case involving intertwined interests in order to evade one's own responsibility or to shift responsibility onto another person, it may give rise to the charge of perjury with intent to harm another. A distinctive feature is that not only the content of the statement but also the intent and purpose at the time of the statement are comprehensively reviewed.

In this case, the Supreme Court comprehensively determined the boundaries of competency as a witness, the privilege against self-incrimination, and liability for perjury, focusing on whether perjury with intent to harm another (mohae perjury) is established where an accomplice co-defendant made a false statement after being converted into a witness through the separation of the proceedings.

The defendant, who served as the head of the construction affairs division of a construction company, was indicted together with the co-defendant on charges of defrauding the company of construction payments by, among other things, carrying out construction in a manner different from the design while submitting manipulated site photographs to conceal this.

Thereafter, in the course of the trial of the co-defendant, the defendant appeared as a witness and made a false statement to the effect of acknowledging the co-defendant's participation in the offense, stating as though he had received instructions that did not in fact exist.

The issue was that the defendant was both an accomplice and a co-defendant.

That is, the key issue in this case was whether perjury, and further perjury with intent to harm another (mohae perjury), can be established even where a party to the same case becomes a witness through the separation of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court, while maintaining the existing legal principles of precedent, held as follows.

For perjury with intent to harm another (mohae perjury) to be established, the mere existence of a false statement is not sufficient; there must be a statement that differs from the objective facts and an awareness that the statement is false.

In addition to this, there must be the purpose of causing another person to be subjected to criminal punishment or to an adverse disposition, that is, the purpose of harming another, recognized.

Such a purpose is determined by comprehensively considering the content of the statement, the circumstances of the statement, and the relationship between the parties, and it is examined more strictly in cases involving intertwined interests, such as accomplice cases.

According to Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act, perjury with intent to harm another (mohae perjury) is evaluated as an aggravated offense compared to ordinary perjury and may be punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

This reflects the dangerousness of conduct that distorts judicial proceedings through a false statement and seeks to shift criminal liability onto another person.

Perjury with intent to harm another (mohae perjury) is a highly demanding area where the overall criminal procedure and constitutional rights intersect.

In particular, in accomplice cases, a single statement may be evaluated as a separate offense, so setting the direction of the initial response can determine the outcome of the case.

Daeryun Law Firm LLP comprehensively reviews the statement strategy in accomplice-structure cases, whether to exercise the right to refuse to testify, and an analysis of perjury risk, and it designs a response framework so that criminal liability does not expand.

In addition, it verifies in advance the legal effect of statements at each stage of investigation and trial and builds a defense strategy in a direction that blocks the occurrence of unnecessary criminal liability.

In particular, in cases where the possibility of an additional indictment exists, such as perjury with intent to harm another, a strategic response that controls the entire proceeding is required.

If you are facing the risk of punishment on charges such as perjury with intent to harm another, we invite you to seek the assistance of Daeryun, the ninth-ranked law firm in Korea (based on 2025 value-added tax filings with the National Tax Service), where attorneys experienced in criminal matters collaborate with the Evidence Examination Center, the Digital Forensics Center, and others to present a strategy tailored to the client's case.