Supreme Court. Kyunghyang Newspaper file photo
The Supreme Court ruled that even if the session of the plenary session that investigated the witnesses in the state audit ended, the perjury could be prosecuted.
The first division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Kim Sun-sun) announced on the 31st that it had confirmed the lower court sentenced to 10 months in prison and 2 years of probation for Mr.
On October 18, 2018, Kim, an employee of Korea South-East Power, appeared as a witness at the National Assembly Committee on Industry, Trade, and Resources Small and Medium Venture Businesses Audit. At that time, inquiries continued about Korea South-East Power’s import of North Korean coal into the country. Rep. Lee Cheol-gyu and others, such as Rep. Yun Han-hong of the Liberty Korea Party (currently People’s Power), asked Kim if he knew that the coal imported by Korea South-East Power was questioned by the Korea Customs Service for suspected North Korean-made coal, and that customs clearance was suspended because it was ‘North Korean coal’. . Kim said, “I haven’t heard about it. I am sure,” he replied, but it was later revealed that Mr. Kim was aware of the investigation by the Korea Customs Service. Kim was charged with perjury by the National Assembly and handed over to trial.
Kim’s lawyer argued, “I testified at the 364th National Assembly Audit, and the accusation was inappropriate because the accusation was decided at the 371st National Assembly.”
However, the first trial said, “Even if there is a change in the composition of the people due to the change of session, it is difficult to believe that the standing committee, which is a permanent body, will no longer exist. Until then, it should be considered that the witness can be charged with perjury.”
He also said, “The accused has a bad quality of crime because he undermined the function of the state audit that satisfies the people’s right to know by perjury.” However, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison and 2 years of probation, saying, “The sentence was decided in consideration of the defendant’s acknowledgment of the crime, repenting of his wrongdoing, and the fact that he was a first-time offender, in addition to arguing for the legality of the accusation.” The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the first instance.
.
