Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 2025도18022 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/5423 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 2025도18022

Perjury with Intent to Harm Another (Recognized Charge: Perjury) [Case concerning whether testimony given in a lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal of a private school teacher constitutes perjury with intent to harm another (모해위증)]모해위증(인정된죄명:위증)[사립학교 교원의 해임무효확인 소송에서 증언한 행위가 모해위증에 해당하는지 문제된 사건]

Decided2026. 01. 29. Court대법원Appeal dismissed (각하) — the charge of perjury with intent to harm another was not recognized; only ordinary perjury applies
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

In a case concerning whether giving false testimony in a lawsuit seeking to nullify the dismissal of a private school teacher constitutes the crime of perjury with intent to harm another (모해위증죄) under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act, the Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary action against a private school teacher is a matter of private law (private employment relationship) and therefore does not fall under 'disciplinary case (징계사건)' as defined in the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the Court held that the crime of perjury with intent to harm another does not apply, and only ordinary perjury (위증죄) is established.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA person was prosecuted for perjury with intent to harm another after allegedly giving false testimony in a lawsuit seeking to nullify the dismissal of a private school teacher.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that because disciplinary action against a private school teacher arises from a private employment relationship, it does not qualify as a 'disciplinary case' under the Criminal Act, and therefore only ordinary perjury—not perjury with intent to harm another—was established.
  • LessonIn lawsuits involving disciplinary action against private school teachers, false testimony is treated as ordinary perjury rather than the more serious offense of perjury with intent to harm another, but witnesses must always testify truthfully in court regardless of which charge applies.
Issues
  • Whether disciplinary action against a private school teacher constitutes a 'disciplinary case (징계사건)' under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act
  • The meaning and requirements for establishing 'disciplinary action (징계)' as an element of the crime of perjury with intent to harm another (모해위증죄)
Key reasoning

The term 'disciplinary action (징계)' under the crime of perjury with intent to harm another refers specifically to administrative sanctions imposed by the State acting in its public law capacity. However, the relationship between a private school teacher and the school foundation is governed by a private-law employment contract, not a public-law relationship. Because disciplinary action against a private school teacher arises from this private contractual relationship rather than from state administrative authority, it cannot be classified as a 'disciplinary case' under the Criminal Act. Consequently, false testimony given in litigation concerning such disciplinary action does not satisfy the elements of perjury with intent to harm another, and instead constitutes ordinary perjury.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act (형법) punishes a witness who, having taken an oath in accordance with the law, makes a false statement with the purpose of framing the defendant, criminal suspect, or person subject to disciplinary charges in connection with a criminal case or disciplinary case. Since the legal interest protected by the crime of perjury for the purpose of framing another is the proper exercise of the State's judicial function and disciplinary function, the term "disciplinary [case]" as used in the above provision means an administrative sanction imposed by the State based on its status under public law, and in such a case, the relationship between the State and the person subject to discipline constitutes a legal relationship under public law.

[2] Teachers at private schools are appointed and dismissed by the school foundation (학교법인) or the private school administrator (Articles 53 and 53-2 of the Private School Act (사립학교법)), and such appointment and dismissal are governed by a private-law employment contract; since teachers at private schools receive wages from the school foundation, etc. in consideration for educating students, the relationship between the school foundation, etc. and the private school teacher is, in principle, a legal relationship under private law. The support, guidance, and supervision that the competent authority provides to the school foundation, etc. under the Private School Act, as well as the guarantee of status for private school teachers, likewise presuppose that the legal relationship between them is one under private law. Moreover, the competent authority's authority to "request" disciplinary action against the appointing authority merely allows it to "request" discipline, and does not designate the competent authority as the subject who administers the discipline. Therefore, where a school foundation, etc. exercises disciplinary authority over a private school teacher, the case relating thereto is not included in the "disciplinary case" under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act.

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,865 chars

[Defendant] Defendant
[Appellant] Prosecutor
[Defense Counsel] Attorney Kim Eung-woo
[Lower Court Judgment] Daegu District Court Judgment 2024No3921, decided October 17, 2025

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act (형법) provides for the punishment of a witness who, having taken an oath in accordance with the law, makes a false statement for the purpose of causing harm to a defendant, a criminal suspect, or a person subject to disciplinary action in connection with a criminal case or a disciplinary case. Since the legal interest protected by the crime of perjury for the purpose of causing harm is the proper exercise of the State's judicial function and disciplinary function (see the purport of Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do942, decided January 21, 2010), the term "disciplinary [case]" as defined in the above provision means administrative sanctions imposed by the State based on its status under public law, and in such a case, the relationship between the State and the person subject to disciplinary action falls under a legal relationship under public law.

B. Teachers of private schools are appointed and dismissed by the school foundation or the founder/operator of the private school (Articles 53 and 53-2 of the Private School Act (사립학교법)), and such appointment and dismissal are governed by a private-law employment contract; since private school teachers receive wages from the school foundation, etc. in return for educating students, the relationship between the school foundation, etc. and private school teachers falls, in principle, under a legal relationship under private law (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6377, decided July 24, 2014). The support, guidance, and supervision by the competent authority over the school foundation, etc., and the guarantee of the status of private school teachers as provided under the Private School Act, are also premised on the assumption that the legal relationship between them is a legal relationship under private law. Furthermore, the authority of the competent authority to "request" disciplinary action to the appointing authority merely means that it may "request" disciplinary action, and does not designate the competent authority as the subject imposing the disciplinary action. Therefore, where a school foundation, etc. has exercised its disciplinary authority over a private school teacher, the case related thereto is not included in the "disciplinary case" under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act.

2. The lower court determined that, since the dismissal disposition against the non-indicted person, who is a private school teacher, does not fall under "disciplinary action" under Article 152(2) of the Criminal Act, the testimony given by the Defendant in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the non-indicted person's dismissal was not a statement made in connection with a disciplinary case, and accordingly found the Defendant not guilty, in the reasoning, of the facts charged in this case, while finding the Defendant guilty of the crime of perjury (위증죄), which is a reduced charge included within the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the lower court's judgment in light of the legal principles set forth above and the record, there is no error in the lower court's determination that exceeds the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence in violation of the rules of logic and experience, or that misapprehends the legal principles concerning the establishment of the crime of perjury for the purpose of causing harm.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and this Judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices.

Justices Eom Sang-pil (Presiding Justice), Oh Kyung-mi, Kwon Young-jun (Justice in charge)

【판결요지】

[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.

【참조조문】

[1] 형법 제152조 제2항

[2] 사립학교법 제53조, 제53조의2, 형법 제152조 제2항

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 2010. 1. 21. 선고 2008도942 전원합의체 판결(공2010상, 465) / [2] 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2014도6377 판결(공2014하, 1762)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,269자 · 펼쳐 보기

【피 고 인】 피고인

【상 고 인】 검사

【변 호 인】 변호사 김응우

【원심판결】 대구지법 2025. 10. 17. 선고 2024노3921 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 가. 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(대법원 2010. 1. 21. 선고 2008도942 전원합의체 판결 취지 참조) 위 조항에서 정한 ‘징계’는 국가가 공법상의 지위에 기초하여 행하는 행정적 제재를 의미하고, 이 경우 국가와 징계대상자 사이의 관계는 공법적 법률관계에 해당한다.

나. 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(대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2014도6377 판결 참조). 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.

2. 원심은, 사립학교 교원인 공소외인에 대한 해임처분은 형법 제152조 제2항의 ‘징계’에 포함되지 않으므로 피고인이 공소외인의 해임무효확인 소송에서 한 증언은 징계사건에 관하여 한 진술이 아니라고 보아, 이 사건 공소사실을 이유에서 무죄로 판단하고 위 공소사실에 포함된 축소사실인 위증죄를 유죄로 인정하였다. 원심판결 이유를 앞서 본 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심의 판단에 논리와 경험의 법칙을 위반하여 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어나거나 모해위증죄 성립에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 없다.

3. 그러므로 상고를 기각하기로 하여, 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 엄상필(재판장) 오경미 권영준(주심)

Related statutes

형법 제152조 제2항사립학교법 제53조사립학교법 제53조의2

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
98두8858 · 대법원 2000-10-13
Revocation of Dismissal Disposition
#2
93누23046 · 대법원 1995-06-13
해임처분취소재결처분취소
#3
4294민상970 · 대법원 1962-05-03
해임결의무효확인
#4
93다3745 · 대법원 1993-05-14
Nullification of Dismissal Disposition, etc.
#5
93다25042 · 대법원 1993-08-24
해임무효확인등

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)