"Falsely Accused of Forging Signature"—Officetel Vice President Indicted for False Accusation

[Financial News] The Criminal Division 5 of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office, led by Chief Prosecutor Jung Ji-young, announced on the 31st that it has indicted, without detention, Vice President A (65) of an Officetel management association on charges of false accusation. A is accused of filing a false complaint against the Officetel superintendent and others who exposed his misconduct.
A is alleged to have submitted a complaint to the police in November last year, claiming that Superintendent B (67) and accounting clerk C (56) forged 32 Cash Receipt Acknowledgements that he had personally signed. However, a prosecutorial investigation confirmed that A had indeed signed the documents himself.
Initially, the police decided not to refer the case for prosecution, based on the results of a private handwriting analysis submitted by A, which indicated a mismatch. However, Superintendent B objected to this decision and filed an appeal. The prosecution then requested an official analysis from the Forensic Science Analysis Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.
During the analysis, prosecutors secured A's previous signatures from meeting minutes as a control group for comparison. They also enhanced the quality of Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from the Officetel management office to reconstruct the moment A signed the documents. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office concluded that the signatures on the Cash Receipt Acknowledgements were highly likely to be A's own handwriting. The footage also showed that the size of the paper A signed matched that of the disputed acknowledgement (half of an A4 sheet).
Once this scientific evidence was secured, A admitted to having signed the documents himself.
Previously, in July, the prosecution had dismissed the charges of document forgery against B and C. Subsequently, A became subject to charges of false accusation for filing a baseless complaint against them.
This case is an example of the prosecution overturning a police non-indictment decision that was based solely on private handwriting analysis. A prosecution official explained, "We questioned the arbitrariness of the control handwriting used as the basis for the analysis, and clarified the facts of the case through an official forensic examination by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Forensic Science Analysis Department."
yesji@fnnews.com Kim Ye-ji Reporter