[2] In a case where a company in the Air Force, who was detained due to the crime of destroying and damaging military supplies, led to a confession by an investigative agency and again denied and the final verdict of innocence, and filed a claim for criminal compensation, the case holding that it does not constitute "the purpose of mislead criminal investigation or trial," which is the element of dismissal of the claim for criminal compensation, on the ground that it was difficult to escape criminal punishment due to his or her injury to a criminal, and that it made a false confession due to psychological pressure

[2] In a case where a company of the Air Force, who was detained due to the crime of destroying and damaging military supplies, led to a confession by an investigative agency and again denied and the final verdict of innocence, and filed a claim for criminal compensation, the case holding that it does not constitute "the purpose of mislead criminal investigation or trial," which is the element of dismissal of the claim for criminal compensation, on the ground that it is difficult for him/her to be exempted from criminal punishment due to his/her psychological pressure due to his/her deprivation of criminal punishment and false

1. The court below acknowledged the following facts based on the record. The re-appellant was detained on October 21, 2003 due to the crime of destroying and damaging military supplies, and was charged with the charge of causing damage to military supplies, and the court affirmed the charge on February 27, 2004 and sentenced the re-appellant to five years of imprisonment with prison labor. The re-appellant filed an appeal under the High Court for Armed Forces 2004No87, and the same court reversed the judgment of the first instance on May 3, 2005 and acquitted the re-appellant on the ground that the charge against the re-appellant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. The prosecutor filed an appeal under the Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3386, but the same court dismissed the appeal on July 27, 2007, and became final and conclusive in the appellate judgment.

Based on the above facts, the court below held that the Re-Appellant's assertion, i.e., the Re-Appellant's argument that he was detained for 269 days from Oct. 21, 2003 to Jul. 16, 2004 and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, the State should pay compensation to the Re-Appellant. In light of the following circumstances, the court below determined that the Re-Appellant did not pay all criminal compensation money on the ground that the Re-Appellant made a false confession for the purpose of leading the military court's trial. ① Although the Re-Appellant admitted the crime from the time of the investigation by the military judicial police officer and the second interrogation protocol prepared by the military prosecutor until the time of the third interrogation protocol prepared by the military prosecutor, he denied the crime from the time of preparing the third interrogation protocol prepared by the military prosecutor. However, there was a concrete and logical logic to the extent that the court's judge found the Re-Appellant's conviction's guilt's confession and the motive and method of the crime presented by the confession. ② While the defendant under investigation by the military judicial police officer was made the aforementioned family members's's.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

When a person who has received a judgment of 'not guilty' in the general procedure, retrial, or extraordinary appeal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act or the Military Court Act, has been placed under detention without conviction, the court may, under the Criminal Compensation Act, claim compensation for such detention against the State (Articles 1(1) and 28(2) of the Criminal Compensation Act). However, under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Compensation Act, the court may dismiss in its discretion all or part the claim for compensation in its entirety or in part.

However, in order for the court to dismiss all or part of a claim for compensation pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Compensation Act, it is insufficient for the principal to make a false confession or to create evidence for other conviction. Here, “the purpose to mislead an investigation or trial” is to ensure that the person concerned is an exceptional reason that restricts the right to claim for criminal compensation guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution, and to prove the right to claim for criminal compensation. On the other hand, in light of the situation of the investigation agency’s investigation and investigation, if the principal’s refusal of crime would be difficult to escape criminal punishment, it cannot be readily concluded that there was “the purpose to mislead an investigation or trial”.

According to the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, the re-appellant: (a) led to the confession of a crime not later than the time when the second protocol of interrogation of the suspect was prepared by the military judicial police officer and the prosecutor of the military; (b) commenced to deny the crime from the time when the third protocol of interrogation of the suspect was prepared by the military prosecutor; and (c) he thought that it would be difficult to be exempted from criminal punishment due to his death as an offender; and (d) made a false confession due to psychological pressure on the examination of a false oral detection device conducted by the Air Force Headquarters. For the same reason, the re-appellant cannot be deemed to have made a false confession with the intention to mislead the military court'

If so, the requirements for applying Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Compensation Act to the re-appellant are not met (in determining the amount of physical compensation, it shall be in accordance with Article 4(2) of the same Act, but it shall not be determined that the amount of criminal compensation is not entirely compensated even if it is determined). Nevertheless, the court below determined that it is reasonable to determine that the re-appellant does not pay the full amount of criminal compensation by applying Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the circumstances stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above provision, and such illegality has influenced the trial.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)