Supreme Court Affirms Accomplices Can Serve as Witnesses and Be Held Liable for Perjury

Accomplices Become Third Parties When Trials Are Separated

Witness Qualification Recognized

Right to Refuse Testimony Presumed

Perjury Charges Apply for False Statements

Chief Justice Jo Heedai of the Supreme Court, along with other Supreme Court justices, entered the Grand Courtroom of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of May 1 to preside over the full bench ruling on the public official election law case of Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party of Korea, and took their seats. 2025.05.01 Photo by Joint Press Corps

The Supreme Court has ruled that even if an accomplice is tried together, once cases are separated, that accomplice may appear as a 'witness' in the other accomplice's trial, and if they lie under oath, they can be punished for perjury.

On March 19, the Supreme Court's full bench (presiding Justice Oh Kyungmi) upheld the lower court's ruling in the appeal trial of a defendant indicted on charges of perjury for malicious purposes, confirming the conviction of one year in prison with a two-year suspension of execution.

This case originated from suspicions of embezzlement of construction costs. The defendant, along with the company operator, was indicted for manipulating photographs to make it appear as if the construction was carried out according to the design drawings, and thereby receiving payment, despite not following the designs as specified.

After the trials were separated, the defendant appeared as a witness in the accomplice's trial and gave false testimony, stating that the accomplice had ordered the photo manipulation, even though the defendant had not actually received such instructions. Prosecutors viewed this as 'perjury for malicious purposes' and brought separate charges.

The key issue was whether an accomplice whose trial is separated can qualify as a witness in the other accomplice's case, and whether perjury charges could be applied to their testimony.

The majority opinion of the full bench (11 justices) maintained the existing stance. If trials are separated, the person is no longer a defendant in that particular case and is instead a third party, making it possible for them to be called as a witness. If they provide false testimony under oath, perjury charges can be applied. Additionally, under the Criminal Procedure Act, a witness is generally considered to be a third party rather than a party to the case. The logic is that even if someone is an accomplice, once they are no longer a defendant in the case, they should be regarded as a witness.

For example, in collaborative crimes such as drug offenses or voice phishing, physical evidence is often lacking, so accomplice testimony can be crucial. Therefore, the court views the process of witness examination, based on an oath and the responsibility for perjury, as more appropriate in such cases.

However, Justice Oh Kyungmi presented a dissenting opinion. She argued that simply separating trials does not make an accomplice a complete third party, and particularly with regard to facts related to their own criminal conduct, they should still be considered to retain the status of a defendant.

In line with the majority opinion of the full bench, the Supreme Court recognized both the witness qualification and perjury liability of accomplices. The Court stated that this decision upholds the current practice in criminal trials of utilizing accomplices as witnesses and serves as a precedent that clarifies the evidentiary use of accomplice testimony.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.