Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 168 of the Criminal Code：A witness, expert witness, or interpreter who, after taking an oath either before or after giving testimony, makes a false statement on a matter of material importance to the case during a trial conducted by a court or during an investigation conducted by a prosecutor shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years.

Facts and Reasons

The complainant was the former spouse of the defendant, who was the client represented by our firm. A third party had filed a civil action against the complainant seeking the return of a consumer loan. During the court proceedings of that case, the defendant appeared in court and testified as a witness.
The complainant alleged that, during the preparatory proceedings, the defendant made false statements on matters materially related to the issues in the previous case, which were sufficient to affect the proper exercise of the State's judicial authority. The complainant therefore filed a criminal complaint with the District Prosecutors Office, accusing the defendant of committing the offense of perjury under Article 168 of the Criminal Code.

Prosecutor's Disposition

The above-mentioned perjury case against the defendant was concluded after investigation, and the prosecutor determined that a non-prosecution disposition should be rendered.

The establishment of the offense of perjury requires, among other elements, that a witness intentionally make a false statement on a matter of material importance to the case. The so-called false statement must refer to a situation where the actor knowingly makes a false statement regarding a matter that he or she knows to be untrue. If the appellant testifies based on what he or she has heard, or if the testimony contains errors due to misunderstanding or unclear memory, the actor lacks criminal intent. Such circumstances are therefore inconsistent with the element of intentionally making a false statement and cannot be punished as the offense of perjury. Reference is made to the Supreme Court Judgment Tai Shang Zi No. 4895 of 2003.

Upon review, considering the conversation screenshots and other evidence submitted by the complainant in the case file, it was not possible to conclude, solely based on the complainant's single accusation, that the defendant subjectively had the intent to knowingly make false testimony regarding matters known to be untrue. Accordingly, the case did not satisfy the constituent elements of the offense of perjury under the Criminal Code, and it was difficult to impose criminal liability for perjury on the defendant.

Furthermore, there was no other affirmative evidence sufficient to prove that the defendant had committed the alleged act of perjury. Therefore, the defendant was found to be insufficiently suspected of committing the offense.

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to  Judicial Yuan's judgment database)