Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Voluntary speech and a statement demanding punishment as a false report
Supreme Court, Jan. 9, 2025, 2024Do16986 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 무고
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person told investigating officers a false fact capable of establishing an offence, then drew up a statement of interview and gave a statement demanding punishment, was that a report of false facts to a law-enforcement authority within Article 156 of the Criminal Act, and how is it decided whether that statement was elicited by questioning from the investigation authorities?
Holding
It was. A report of false facts may be made orally or in writing and need only be voluntary, so a mere provision of information at the request of the investigation authorities is not a report; but where a person tells an officer facts capable of establishing an offence and later gives, while the statement of interview is drawn up, a statement demanding that person's punishment, that is a voluntary report to the authorities made with the purpose of causing another to face criminal disposition. Whether such a statement was elicited by questioning is judged in the round, by how the investigation came to be opened and the connection between the offence investigated and the statement.
Points at issue, verbatim
수사관을 만나 범죄혐의를 인정할 수 있는 허위사실을 말한 뒤에 진술조서를 작성하면서 처벌을 요구하는 진술을 한 경우, 수사기관에 대하여 허위의 사실을 신고한 경우에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 그 진술이 수사기관 등의 추문에 의한 것인지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Whether a person who, after meeting an investigator and stating false facts that may admit of a criminal charge, makes a statement demanding punishment while a written statement is being prepared, falls under the case of reporting a false fact to an investigative authority (affirmative), and the method of determining, in such a case, whether the statement was caused by the questioning of an investigative authority, etc.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이때 그 진술이 수사기관 등의 추문에 의한 것인지 여부는 수사가 개시된 경위, 수사의 혐의사실과 그 진술의 관련성 등을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
In such a case, whether the statement was caused by the questioning of the investigative authority, etc. must be determined by making an overall assessment of the circumstances in which the investigation was initiated, the relevance between the facts suspected in the investigation and the statement, and so forth.
Factors
- 수사관을 만나 범죄혐의를 인정할 수 있는 허위사실을 말한 뒤에 진술조서를 작성하면서 처벌을 요구하는 진술을 한 경우
- 이때 그 진술이 수사기관 등의 추문에 의한 것인지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
• Where a person, after meeting an investigator and stating false facts that may admit of a criminal charge, makes a statement demanding punishment while a written statement is being prepared
• The method of determining, in such a case, whether the statement was caused by the questioning of an investigative authority, etc.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 8. 25. 선고 2004도1391 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1391 decided August 25, 2006, etc.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2006. 8. 25. 선고 2004도1391 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How close must the connection be between the offence being investigated and a statement given later at the police station before that statement counts as elicited by questioning rather than a voluntary report?
The remand judgment, once it re-examines the defendant's statements against the Article 156 elements, will show how the voluntariness test is applied on the facts. Any later Supreme Court decision on when a statement is a voluntary report, or an amendment to Article 156 of the Criminal Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading gives a holistic method (종합 고려) for judging elicitation in general, while the independent reading applies the test to the defendant's conduct (사안 적용) and concludes the lower court erred.
수사관을 만나 범죄혐의를 인정할 수 있는 허위사실을 말한 뒤에 진술조서를 작성하면서 처벌을 요구하는 진술을 한 경우, 수사기관에 대하여 허위의 사실을 신고한 경우에 해당하는지 여부(적극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How close must the connection be between the offence being investigated and a statement given later at the police station before that statement counts as elicited by questioning rather than a voluntary report?” vs Independent “How should voluntariness be assessed when a person merely answers investigators' questions without requesting punishment or subsequently submitting evidence?”
The primary reading asks how close the link between the investigated offence and a later statement must be, whereas the independent reading asks how to assess voluntariness when a person merely answers questions without demanding punishment.
수사관을 만나 범죄혐의를 인정할 수 있는 허위사실을 말한 뒤에 진술조서를 작성하면서 처벌을 요구하는 진술을 한 경우, 수사기관에 대하여 허위의 사실을 신고한 경우에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 그 진술이 수사기관 등의 추문에 의한 것인지 판단하는 방법Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 17 October 2024 (2024No1880), set aside the first-instance judgment convicting the defendant and acquitted the defendant, because the facts did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was a person who reported false facts to the investigation authorities.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that reasoning hard to accept: because the defendant, having said that A had subjected the defendant to quasi-rape, then wrote a handwritten statement, handed over the skirt and underwear worn at the time, attended the police station as the victim of a quasi-rape case, protested the failure to take A's bloodstains and submitted photographs, KakaoTalk records, a medical opinion and medical records, the initial statement to the attending officers and each later statement to the investigation authorities were a report under Article 156 of the Criminal Act, not elicited by questioning. The court below had misapprehended the law on the report element of the offence of false accusation and so erred in its judgment; the Justices unanimously reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the person merely provided information in response to a request or questioning by the investigation authorities, which the decision holds is not a report.
- A statement whose connection with the offence under investigation is absent or weak, where how the investigation began and that connection do not show a voluntary report.
- Words that state no fact capable of establishing an offence, since the decision turns on speech that could found a criminal charge.
Record verification notes
Establish first who opened the investigation: here A called 112 first and the defendant then spoke to the officers who attended. Then trace the defendant's statements and acts over time, from the lobby and the handwritten statement at the police box to the attendance on 27 July 2022 and the items submitted on 4 and 8 August 2022, since the Court relied on that whole course of conduct. Test each statement against the Article 156 elements, in particular whether it demanded punishment of another, and note that the cited earlier decision appears only as a reference.
From the official text
Points at issue
수사관을 만나 범죄혐의를 인정할 수 있는 허위사실을 말한 뒤에 진술조서를 작성하면서 처벌을 요구하는 진술을 한 경우, 수사기관에 대하여 허위의 사실을 신고한 경우에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 그 진술이 수사기관 등의 추문에 의한 것인지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Whether a person who, after meeting an investigator and stating false facts that may admit of a criminal charge, makes a statement demanding punishment while a written statement is being prepared, falls under the case of reporting a false fact to an investigative authority (affirmative), and the method of determining, in such a case, whether the statement was caused by the questioning of an investigative authority, etc.
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
형법 제156조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger