'False Precedent' Penalty Under Review by National Assembly … Park Sang-yong's Complaint Cites Unrelated Case Law

While the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee reviews a bill to impose fines on defendants and attorneys who cite false precedents or laws in trials, suspicions have emerged that the National Assembly may have used artificial intelligence (AI) when filing charges against Prosecutor Park Sang-yong by citing a precedent unrelated to the case.

According to the National Assembly on the 27th, 13 lawmakers including Rep. Lee Sung-yun of the Democratic Party submitted a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act on the 3rd of last month. The bill is currently pending in the Legislative and Judiciary Committee.

The revision allows courts to impose fines of up to 5 million won by ruling if a defendant or attorney knowingly or negligently cites a non-existent law or court ruling, decision, or Constitutional Court decision, or falsely cites the main contents thereof.

Rep. Lee stated in the bill's rationale that while creating false physical evidence and submitting it to trial can be punished as evidence destruction, false accusation, fraud, document forgery-related crimes, and others, there are no clear sanctions for making legal arguments by citing false laws or precedents.

However, the revision targets cases where defendants or attorneys falsely cite laws or precedents during trials. While a complaint filed by the National Assembly to police or prosecution is a document to initiate investigation, it is not a document submitted by defendants or attorneys in trial, so even if the revision passes, it would not directly apply.

The National Assembly's Special Committee on State Affairs Investigation cited the '2009do10645 ruling' when filing charges against Prosecutor Park.

The complaint stated that this precedent specified that "the right to refuse testimony under Articles 148 and others of the Criminal Procedure Act is exercised by a witness in response to individual questions after already completing the oath, and therefore cannot be grounds for refusing the oath itself."

However, the '2009do10645 ruling' is known to be a case involving violation of the Labor Standards Act. Critics point out that the ruling cited in quotation marks in the complaint cannot be found in the actual decision.

The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the right to refuse testimony in Articles 148 and 149, while requiring witnesses to take an oath before examination in Article 156. In contrast, Article 3 of the Act on Testimony and Expert Opinion Before the National Assembly separately provides that when grounds for refusing testimony exist under the Criminal Procedure Act, a witness may "refuse to take an oath, give testimony, or submit documents."

In filing charges for alleged violations of the Act on Testimony and Expert Opinion Before the National Assembly regarding testimony to the National Assembly, it appears the legal reasoning on refusing to testify as a general witness in criminal trials was applied.

Kong Bong-sook, a prosecutor at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, stated on her SNS: "The 2009do10645 ruling is a Labor Standards Act violation case. I thought only the case number was written incorrectly and searched for precedents with the same meaning, but I could not find any at all."

Prosecutor Kong stated: "When the Act on Testimony and Expert Opinion Before the National Assembly Article 3 recognizes both refusal to take an oath and refusal to testify, it was unclear what the statement 'the right to refuse testimony is exercised by a witness in response to individual questions after completing the oath and therefore cannot be grounds for refusing the oath itself' means. The person in charge of the National Assembly complaint could find no way to explain why Prosecutor Park's refusal to take an oath was a crime, so they appear to have entirely delegated the drafting of the complaint to AI, and AI responded with a hallucination," she argued.

Prosecutor Park also stated on his SNS: "I don't know if AI was used, but since the National Assembly's complaint is an official document, this constitutes the creation of a false official document," and characterized it as "incompetence beyond imagination."

Prosecutor Park appeared as a witness before the Special Committee on State Affairs Investigation on April 3 and 14 but refused to take an oath. The Special Committee filed charges against Prosecutor Park for allegedly refusing to take an oath without just cause, citing violations of Article 12 of the Act on Testimony and Expert Opinion Before the National Assembly. It also applied charges of contempt of the National Assembly under Article 13 of the same law for failing to follow the order to leave and causing commotion inside and outside the meeting room.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Public Crime Investigation Division called Prosecutor Park in as a person under investigation on this day to investigate the circumstances of his refusal to take an oath.

However, it has not been confirmed whether AI was actually used in drafting the complaint. Related materials such as AI input/output records or document creation history have not been released.

A official familiar with National Assembly internal matters said regarding the circumstances of how the precedent was cited in the complaint and whether AI was utilized in the drafting process: "Under review."

전시언 취재편집부문 대표 yourside@suwonilbo.kr