Perjury & Evidence Destruction Lawyer | What actually gets prosecuted, and where the defense fights are won

Perjury & Evidence Destruction | Did you actually know the statement was false?

Perjury is not simply about being wrong on the stand. The prosecution must show that you subjectively knew, at the moment you testified, that what you were saying did not match your own memory or understanding of the facts.

Perjury requires a false statement measured against your own memory

Korean courts have consistently held that whether a statement is 'false' for perjury purposes is judged against the witness's own memory and perception, not against objective historical fact (형법 제152조 제1항). If you testified honestly based on a mistaken memory or a misunderstanding of the question, that is a critical distinction from deliberately saying something you knew to be untrue. This is usually the single biggest point of contention in these cases.

Contradicting an earlier statement is not automatically perjury

Investigators sometimes point to inconsistencies between your court testimony and an earlier police or prosecutorial statement as if that alone proves perjury. It does not — memory naturally shifts over time, questions get phrased differently, and partial recollection is normal. The relevant question is always what you believed to be true when you raised your hand and swore the oath in front of the court that day.

Aggravated perjury in someone else's criminal case

If your false testimony was given in a criminal trial and it caused the defendant to be convicted or receive a disciplinary sanction, the sentence can be aggravated (형법 제153조 provides for reduction or exemption of punishment if the witness confesses before the case is finalized, which is a separate, important consideration). Understanding whether a voluntary correction or confession is available and how it affects sentencing is something to discuss with counsel before deciding how to proceed.

Perjury & Evidence Destruction | What actually counts as 'evidence' and 'destruction'

Evidence destruction charges are broader than people expect — the object does not have to be a smoking gun, and 'destruction' includes hiding or altering, not just physically breaking something.

The evidence must relate to someone else's case

Article 155 of the Criminal Act only covers evidence relevant to another person's criminal case or disciplinary proceeding — destroying evidence in your own case is generally not punishable under this provision, though it can still matter for how your own case is viewed (형법 제155조 제1항). Whether the case belongs to 'another person' as opposed to yourself, and whether an investigation had already begun, are often disputed factual questions.

Deleting messages, hiding documents, and asking others to do the same all count

Deleting a text message thread, wiping a phone, shredding a document, or hiding a physical object can all qualify as 'destruction, alteration, or concealment' under Article 155. Persuading or instructing another person to destroy evidence on your behalf is treated the same as doing it yourself, and can also expose that other person to liability.

Fabricating false evidence is a separate, related offense

Creating false evidence to be used in someone else's criminal case or disciplinary proceeding is punished under the same article as destruction (형법 제155조 제1항), and inducing a witness to give false testimony is separately punishable (형법 제155조 제3항). These provisions are often charged together with perjury when an entire scheme to mislead an investigation is uncovered.

Perjury & Evidence Destruction | What to be careful about once you are contacted as a suspect

Most damage in these cases happens after the initial act — during the investigation itself, when a suspect tries to explain, minimize, or fix what happened without first understanding how the statements will be used.

Everything said in the investigation interview is a statement, not a conversation

Investigators are trained to ask the same question multiple ways to test consistency. A suspect who tries to talk their way out of an inconsistency without preparation often creates new, avoidable contradictions. Reviewing the original testimony or documents with a lawyer before the interview helps identify what genuinely needs clarification versus what should simply be left as is.

Contacting co-witnesses or the other party can backfire badly

Reaching out to a co-defendant, the original witness, or the party who benefited from the false testimony to 'get the story straight' is frequently treated by prosecutors as an attempt to further obstruct the investigation, sometimes leading to additional charges or a request for pretrial detention. Any necessary contact should go through legal counsel, not directly between the parties involved.

Voluntary correction before the case is finalized can matter for sentencing

For perjury, Article 153 of the Criminal Act allows for the punishment to be reduced or exempted if the person confesses or corrects the false testimony before the related judgment or disciplinary decision becomes final (형법 제153조). Whether and how to make such a correction is a strategic decision that should be made with legal advice, since a poorly timed or worded correction can also be read as an admission with different implications for other related charges.

Perjury & Evidence Destruction | From receiving a notice to case resolution

Perjury & Evidence Destruction | How legal fees are calculated in these cases

※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.

Perjury & Evidence Destruction | Self-Check Before You Speak to Investigators

Frequently Asked Questions

Official References

• Korea Law Information Center — https://www.law.go.kr
• Easy-to-Find Everyday Legal Information — https://easylaw.go.kr
• Korea Legal Aid Corporation — https://www.klac.or.kr