Hello. I am attorney Lee Kyung-jun of Cheongchul Law Firm.

In criminal practice, it is common for a single case to spark a follow-up consultation about “filing a false-accusation charge against the other party” before the original case is even over. A typical example is a suspect who, after receiving a non-prosecution disposition in a sexual-offense, assault, or fraud case, immediately counter-files a false-accusation (false accusation, 무고죄) charge against the complainant.

Conversely, more and more clients come to us saying, “I only filed a complaint because I felt wronged, yet I am the one who ended up booked for false accusation.” When one side receives a non-prosecution disposition, the other side is booked for false accusation — this so-called “counter-accusation structure” has become routine in criminal practice.

So, exactly when does the crime of false accusation arise, and when is it not punishable? The Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling that once again drew a clear line around the scope of false accusation: Supreme Court Decision 2025Do1084, rendered on May 15, 2025 (false accusation, etc.; appeal dismissed).

1. The Basic Structure of False Accusation — Objective and Subjective Elements

The crime of false accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act (형법 제156조) is established by “reporting false facts to a public office or public official with the purpose of causing another person to be subjected to a criminal or disciplinary disposition.” The statutory penalty is imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 15 million — by no means light.

There are three objective elements: ① the reported matter must be a fact capable of subjecting someone to a criminal or disciplinary disposition; ② that fact must be false, contrary to objective truth; and ③ the report must have been made to a public office or public official. The form of the report does not matter — complaint, accusation, petition, or appeal — and anonymous, written, and oral reports are all included.

As a subjective element, a “purpose of causing another person to be subjected to a criminal or disciplinary disposition” must be recognized, together with intent regarding the falsity of the reported facts. The Supreme Court holds that this intent need not be definite; even dolus eventualis (mere conditional awareness) suffices.

2. Ruling 2025Do1084 — The “Reported Fact” Itself Must Be Subject to Punishment or Discipline

The 2025Do1084 ruling once again clarified objective element ① of false accusation. The issue was whether “the fact reported by the defendant could itself be a cause for a criminal or disciplinary disposition.”

The specific facts were as follows. The defendant filed a false-accusation charge against the other party, alleging that the other party had falsely reported the defendant to the Korean National Police Human Resources Development Institute and thereby caused the defendant to be disciplined. However, discipline imposed on a permanent contract worker belonging to that Institute is not a status-based sanction for maintaining order in a public-law supervisory relationship, but is closer to a “private-law juristic act” between an employer and an employee.

The Supreme Court held that a “disciplinary disposition” means a status-based sanction imposed to maintain order in a public-law supervisory relationship, so a disciplinary disposition that has the character of a private-law juristic act does not fall under the “disciplinary disposition” of Article 156 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, even if the report that caused such private-law discipline was false, that false report itself cannot constitute false accusation, and therefore the defendant who in turn reported it is also not guilty of false accusation.

3. Four Types of Cases Where False Accusation Is Not Established

Synthesizing Supreme Court precedents, the cases where false accusation is not established fall broadly into four types. First, where the reported fact itself does not constitute a criminal offense or a public-law ground for discipline. This is the type squarely addressed by the 2025Do1084 ruling, and the same conclusion had previously been reached regarding a school foundation’s disciplinary disposition against a private-school teacher (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6377, rendered on July 24, 2014).

Second, where the reporter was convinced that the content of the report was true. The Supreme Court holds that even if the report does not match objective facts, if the reporter believed it to be true in light of the facts as he or she knew them, the intent to falsely accuse is negated. However, “mere suspicion or conjecture” is distinguished from “conviction,” and where someone reports without sufficiently verifying the facts, dolus eventualis may be recognized.

Third, where part of the reported facts is contrary to objective truth, but it does not independently become the object of a criminal disposition and merely exaggerates the circumstances of the reported facts. For example, this applies where an assault did in fact occur, but its frequency or severity was somewhat inflated.

Fourth, where the statute of limitations on the reported fact has already expired or an amnesty has been granted, so that “the reported fact itself can no longer be the object of a criminal disposition.” In this case too, false accusation is not established because the reported fact cannot be a cause for a criminal disposition.

4. When You Are Charged with False Accusation — Defense Strategy

If, after receiving a non-prosecution disposition in the original case, you are immediately booked for false accusation by the other party, the first thing to check is “whether the entire original report was false, or only part of it.” Since precedents tend to find that partial exaggeration is not false accusation, proving with objective evidence that the core of the facts you reported is true becomes the starting point of the defense.

Next, you must organize “the facts as you knew them at the time of the report.” Even if, in hindsight, parts turn out to differ from the truth, intent may be negated if there were circumstances that made it reasonable to be convinced it was true in light of what you knew at the time. KakaoTalk messages, texts, recordings, and medical records — materials from just before the report — play a decisive role.

Finally, you must examine whether the report aimed at a “criminal disposition or a public-law disciplinary disposition,” or was a report in the private-law domain, such as a simple civil complaint, protest, or internal disciplinary request. As in the 2025Do1084 ruling, if the target of the report does not fall under a disposition of Article 156 of the Criminal Act, false accusation cannot be established on that ground alone.

5. When You Are Subjected to a False Complaint — Checks at the False-Accusation Filing Stage

Conversely, if you have been subjected to a false complaint and wish to file a false-accusation charge against the other party, you must not conclude that false accusation is established simply because a non-prosecution disposition was issued. A non-prosecution disposition only means “the evidence is insufficient”; you must separately prove that the other party’s report was “objectively false” and was made “with awareness of its falsity.”

In particular, sexual-offense, domestic-violence, and dating-violence cases often occur in a space shared by only two people, making it difficult to prove the other party’s awareness of falsity. Because filing a false-accusation charge with only a copy of the non-prosecution disposition attached very often results in that false-accusation charge itself being closed without prosecution, you should secure in advance materials that “can actively show the falsity” — KakaoTalk messages, call recordings, CCTV, third-party statements — before proceeding to file.

6. What Clients Should Check at the Early Stage of a Case

The first thing to organize in a false-accusation case is “the specific content of the originally reported fact and the agency to which it was reported.” Whether the reported content can constitute a criminal offense, whether it was a report to a public office or public official, and whether the disposition of the reporting agency is a public-law status sanction or a private-law disciplinary measure — all of these are first-stage review items.

Specifically, you should organize: ① whether you have secured a copy of the report, petition, or complaint; ② what materials (messengers, call recordings, diagnoses, etc.) you or the other party held at the time of the report; ③ what disposition resulted from the report and whether it was a “public-law status sanction”; ④ whether, even if there is some exaggeration in the reported facts, the core facts are true; and ⑤ whether there is a non-prosecution disposition or a statement of reasons for non-indictment.

If you are in the position of having been charged with false accusation, it is safer to first review, together with defense counsel, whether “this false-accusation charge is even structured to be subject to criminal punishment” — rather than rushing into a counter-complaint right after receiving the non-prosecution disposition.

7. Conclusion

Contrary to the general public perception that “any false report becomes false accusation,” this 2025Do1084 ruling made clear that “the reported fact itself must be capable of becoming a cause for a criminal disposition or a public-law disciplinary disposition.” Although the term is simple, false accusation is structured to be established only when both objective and subjective elements are met, and the precedents on its boundaries continue to be refined.

Whether you are a client booked for false accusation within a counter-accusation structure, or a client seeking to respond with a false-accusation charge after a false complaint, the starting point of the defense is to accurately analyze “the legal nature of the reported fact” and “your awareness at the time of the report.” We recommend consulting a criminal-law specialist attorney at the earliest possible stage to design your defense strategy together.