Article 194-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The State shall compensate for the expenses incurred in the trial against the person who was the defendant of the case in question where the judgment of innocence has become final and conclusive.” The aforementioned expense compensation system aims to ensure the right of defense and property rights of the person having the right to claim compensation for the expenses incurred inevitably due to risks inherent in the criminal justice action of the State by allowing the State to compensate for the expenses incurred in the trial to compensate the defendant for the expenses incurred in the trial. In light of such legislative intent and content, etc., as well as the cases where the judgment of not guilty is rendered in a judgment of not guilty on the grounds of the judgment, even in cases where the judgment of not guilty on the grounds of the judgment, it shall be deemed that the compensation is necessary to exercise the right of defense of the part having been judged not guilty among the expenses incurred in the trial. However, in such cases, the court may dismiss all or part of the claim for compensation in its discretion by analogical application

According to the records, the Re-Appellant was prosecuted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (reffort Violence, etc.) with regard to the facts charged that "the victim committed assault on February 16, 2016, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to an act of violence against the victim, who was in the front place, committed an act of violence, etc. for the purpose of retaliation," and the above court rendered a judgment of innocence on May 13, 2016 on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Re-Appellant had the purpose of retaliation against the victim on May 13, 2016, on the grounds that the agreement containing the intent not to punish the victim was submitted to the investigation agency prior to the prosecution, and the judgment dismissing the prosecution on the ground that the agreement containing the intent not to punish the victim was submitted to the investigation agency prior to the prosecution, and the appellate court rendered the judgment dismissing the appeal on August 10, 2016, which became final and conclusive.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Re-Appellant was found not guilty of the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (re-appellant) on the grounds of the judgment, and thus, it should be deemed that the Re-Appellant can claim compensation for expenses incurred in the trial pursuant to Article 194-2(1)

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Re-Appellant’s assertion that “The charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (refence, etc.) which constitutes the case where a judgment of innocence under Article 194-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on Compensation for Expenses becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the judgment of innocence was rendered, solely on the grounds that the judgment of acquittal was rendered without being acquitted in the text of the judgment that became the subject of the claim for compensation of this case and the dismissal of prosecution was pronounced.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the case where a judgment of innocence becomes final and conclusive” under Article 19

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 Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)