Supreme Court: "Even an Accomplice Who Takes a Witness Oath After Trial Separation Cannot Lie"

Even with the Constitutional Right to Remain Silent,
False Testimony as a Witness Is Subject to Punishment

If a co-defendant, who is in a relationship of accomplice, appears as a witness after the trial procedures have been separated, the person cannot give false testimony, even if the questions pertain to their own criminal acts, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling. The court held that even though the right to remain silent is constitutionally guaranteed, once a person has sworn in as a witness, not as a defendant, lying is not permissible.

Yonhap News

According to the legal community on June 10, the Third Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) recently upheld the lower court’s ruling against former Shinhan Financial Group Chairman A (who was president of the bank at the time) and former Shinhan Bank President B, both indicted on perjury charges, confirming sentences of six months and four months in prison, respectively, each suspended for two years.

The case began with suspicions that around February 2008, 300 million won in cash was raised through the Shinhan Bank secretary's office and delivered to an unidentified individual. At the time, the bank’s top management was put on trial on charges of embezzlement, accused of creating slush funds under the guise of consulting fees to prepare the funds.

The perjury in question occurred during their embezzlement trial in 2012. At that time, the court separated the trial procedures for the two, and as a result, each appeared as a witness in the other's trial. Former Chairman A denied giving any instructions, while former President B testified that he had never been informed of the existence of the slush funds.

However, prosecutors later indicted them for perjury, arguing that documents and testimonies secured after the fact proved both men were already aware of the existence and delivery of the money, but lied under oath in court.

The key issue in this case was whether a co-defendant, when appearing as a witness, can be punished for lying to cover up their own crimes. The first and second trials initially acquitted the defendants, siding with their argument. The courts reasoned that, although they had taken the witness oath, their status as defendants remained strong when asked about their own crimes. Therefore, the courts held that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination (the right not to be forced to testify against oneself) took precedence.

However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision and remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to convict. The Supreme Court ruled, "If the trial procedures are separated, an accomplice who is no longer in the position of defendant can become a third-party witness. If the judge informs the witness of the right to refuse to testify, but the person does not exercise that right, takes an oath, and then gives false testimony, they can be found guilty of perjury."

Afterwards, the defendants appealed again, but the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, stating, "The lower court’s guilty verdict is justified and there was no legal misunderstanding," thus confirming the convictions.

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