Secretly Using Father's Money and Reporting 'Unknown Person'... Supreme Court Rules "False Accusation Charge Not Established"

Spent about 18 million won on entertainment expenses then sued... 1st and 2nd trials recognize guilt, fined 3 million won
Supreme Court: "Though it may cause trouble to public officials, no concern of disrupting the judgment"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court reaffirmed its precedent that the crime of false accusation does not apply when the accused person is unspecified.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) overturned the lower court's ruling that found Mr. A guilty of false accusation and sentenced him to a fine of 3 million won, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court, the court announced on the 30th.

In February 2019, Mr. A filed a complaint with the police stating, "Money is being withdrawn from my account without my knowledge, so please identify who is taking the money." He claimed, "Only my father and the head of management at my father's company have access to my bankbook, but the withdrawal was made without their knowledge."

Mr. A's father operated a golf practice range and used a bank account under Mr. A's name. Mr. A reissued the bankbook linked to this account in November 2018 and secretly withdrew 18.65 million won by February 2019, which he then used for entertainment expenses and other purposes.

The prosecution charged Mr. A with false accusation, believing he tried to conceal the fact that he secretly withdrew money kept by his father from the account under his own name and used it for entertainment expenses. Mr. A did not specify the accused in the complaint and listed the accused as "unidentified person."

According to Supreme Court precedents, the crime of false accusation does not apply when the accused person is unspecified. However, both the first and second trials found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 3 million won.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out, "The crime of false accusation does not apply to an unidentified person," explaining, "Although it may cause unnecessary trouble to public officials, there is no risk of undermining the trial itself, nor can it harm the accused."

Furthermore, the court ruled that it was wrong to specify the accused as "head of management, etc." and convict without following the procedure to amend the indictment. The court stated, "The prosecutor charged the defendant with falsely accusing an 'unidentified person,' but the lower court regarded the victim of the false accusation as 'head of management, etc.' In such cases, to recognize guilt, the indictment must be amended, and recognizing guilt without amending the indictment may cause disadvantages to the defendant in exercising the right to defense."

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