Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Discipline under Article 152(2) excludes action by a private school corporation
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2025Do18022 (judgment)
Case name: 모해위증(인정된죄명:위증)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a case in which a school corporation exercises its disciplinary power over a private school teacher fall within the term 'disciplinary case' in Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act, which punishes a sworn witness who gives false testimony with intent to harm a defendant, suspect or person subject to discipline?
Holding
No. The protected legal interest of harmful perjury is the proper exercise of the State's judicial and disciplinary functions, so 'discipline' in Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act means an administrative sanction the State exercises on the basis of a public-law position, and the relationship between the State and the person disciplined is a public-law relationship. A private school teacher is appointed by the school corporation or the operator of the private school under a private-law employment contract and paid wages for educating pupils, so that relationship is in principle one of private law; the competent authority's power is only to demand discipline, not to be made the disciplining body, and a case on discipline by a school corporation is therefore not a 'disciplinary case'.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 학교법인 등이 사립학교 교원에 대하여 징계권을 행사한 경우 이에 관한 사건은 형법 제152조 제2항의 ‘징계사건’에 포함되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, where a school corporation, etc. exercises the power of discipline over a private school teacher, a case concerning such disciplinary action is not included in 'a disciplinary case' under Article 152 (2) of the Criminal Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 조항에서 정한 ‘징계’는 국가가 공법상의 지위에 기초하여 행하는 행정적 제재를 의미하고
Unofficial English translation
'Disciplinary action' provided in the foregoing provision means an administrative sanction imposed by the State on the basis of a status under public law, and
Factors
- 국가의 사법작용과 징계작용의 적정한 행사이므로
- 국가와 징계대상자 사이의 관계는 공법적 법률관계에 해당한다
- 학교법인 등과 사립학교 교원의 관계는 원칙적으로 사법상 법률관계에 해당한다
- 관할청의 임용권자에 대한 징계요구 권한은 징계를 ‘요구’할 수 있다는 것일 뿐 그 징계주체를 관할청으로 정한 것이 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• since it is the appropriate exercise of the State's judicial function and disciplinary function
• the relationship between the State and the person subject to disciplinary action corresponds to a public-law legal relationship
• the relationship between a school corporation, etc. and a private school teacher corresponds, in principle, to a private-law legal relationship
• the authority of the competent authority to demand that the appointing power exercise discipline means only that it may 'demand' such discipline, and does not designate the competent authority as the entity exercising that power of discipline
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 1. 21. 선고 2008도942 전원합의체 판결(공2010상, 465)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2008Do942 decided January 21, 2010 (Gong 2010 Sang, 465)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2010. 1. 21. 선고 2008도942 전원합의체 판결(공2010상, 465) / [2] 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2014도6377 판결(공2014하, 1762)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the competent authority itself, rather than a school corporation, disciplines a private school teacher, does the case fall within a 'disciplinary case' under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act?
A later decision on discipline imposed by the competent authority itself would test the boundary this judgment drew between public-law and private-law discipline. Any amendment to Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act or to Article 53 and Article 53-2 of the Private School Act would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the competent authority itself, rather than a school corporation, disciplines a private school teacher, does the case fall within a 'disciplinary case' under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act?” vs Independent “Would proceedings reviewing a supervisory authority's disciplinary request qualify as a disciplinary case under Article 152(2)?”
The primary reading asks about discipline imposed directly by the authority, while the independent reading asks about proceedings reviewing the authority's request for discipline.
따라서 학교법인 등이 사립학교 교원에 대하여 징계권을 행사한 경우 이에 관한 사건은 형법 제152조 제2항의 ‘징계사건’에 포함되지 않는다.Raw 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 Daegu District Court, in its judgment of 17 October 2025 (2024No3921), held that the dismissal of the non-party private school teacher was not 'discipline' within Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act, so the defendant's testimony in the lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of that dismissal was not a statement made about a disciplinary case. On that reasoning it acquitted the defendant on the charged count of harmful perjury, while finding the defendant guilty of perjury, the lesser included offence contained in that charge.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law it set out and the record, it held that the court below had neither breached the rules on the limits of free evaluation of evidence nor misapprehended the law on the elements of harmful perjury, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the State itself, from its public-law position, imposes an administrative sanction, such as discipline of a public school teacher by the competent authority.
- Testimony in a criminal case or in a genuine disciplinary case, where the witness was lawfully sworn and made the false statement with intent to harm the defendant, suspect or person subject to discipline.
- A charge of perjury under Article 152(1) about a criminal case, which does not turn on the meaning of 'disciplinary case'.
Record verification notes
Identify first who imposed the discipline and on what legal basis, since the decision turns on the school corporation holding the disciplinary power as against the competent authority that may only demand it. Then confirm that the testimony was given by a lawfully sworn witness with intent to harm the disciplined person, and check how the court below treated the lesser included offence of perjury, which stood even after the harmful perjury count failed.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 모해위증죄에 관한 형법 제152조 제2항에서 정한 ‘징계’의 의미 및 이때 국가와 징계대상자 사이의 관계(=공법적 법률관계) [2] 학교법인 등이 사립학교 교원에 대하여 징계권을 행사한 경우, 이에 관한 사건이 형법 제152조 제2항의 ‘징계사건’에 포함되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of 'disciplinary action' provided in Article 152 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime of perjury injurious to another, and the relationship between the State and the person subject to disciplinary action (= public-law legal relationship) [2] Whether, where a school corporation, etc. exercises the power of discipline over a private school teacher, a case concerning such disciplinary action is included in 'a disciplinary case' under Article 152 (2) of the Criminal Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법 제152조 제2항은 법률에 따라 선서한 증인이 형사사건 또는 징계사건에 관하여 피고인, 피의자 또는 징계혐의자를 모해할 목적으로 허위의 진술을 하는 행위를 처벌하도록 정하고 있다. 이러한 모해위증죄의 보호법익은 국가의 사법작용과 징계작용의 적정한 행사이므로 위 조항에서 정한 ‘징계’는 국가가 공법상의 지위에 기초하여 행하는 행정적 제재를 의미하고, 이 경우 국가와 징계대상자 사이의 관계는 공법적 법률관계에 해당한다. [2] 사립학교 교원은 학교법인 또는 사립학교경영자가 임면하고(사립학교법 제53조, 제53조의2), 그 임면은 사법상 고용계약에 따르며, 사립학교 교원은 학생을 교육하는 대가로 학교법인 등에서 임금을 지급받으므로 학교법인 등과 사립학교 교원의 관계는 원칙적으로 사법상 법률관계에 해당한다. 사립학교법이 정하고 있는 관할청의 학교법인 등에 대한 지원과 지도·감독 및 사립학교 교원에 대한 지위 보장 역시 이들 사이의 법률관계가 사법상 법률관계임을 전제로 하는 것이다. 또한 관할청의 임용권자에 대한 징계요구 권한은 징계를 ‘요구’할 수 있다는 것일 뿐 그 징계주체를 관할청으로 정한 것이 아니다. 따라서 학교법인 등이 사립학교 교원에 대하여 징계권을 행사한 경우 이에 관한 사건은 형법 제152조 제2항의 ‘징계사건’에 포함되지 않는다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제152조 제2항 / [2] 사립학교법 제53조, 제53조의2, 형법 제152조 제2항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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