기록에 의하면, 재심청구인은 경북 □□군 소재 임야 약 25만 평에 ○○과학대학교 설립을 추진하던 중 2001. 10. 16. □□군수 공소외 3과 가칭 학교법인 ○○대학 건립 투자약정을 체결하고 2001. 11. 1. □□군에 이행보증금 명목으로 2억 원을 지불한 다음 2001. 12. 3. 공소외 4 주식회사 회장 공소외 5와 ○○과학대학교 설립을 위하여 위 임야를 학교 부지로 변경하는 내용의 용역 계약을 체결하고 그 계약금 명목으로 1억 6,410만 원을 지불한 사실, 재심청구인은 2001. 10. 30. 피해자 공소외 2에게 위 ○○과학대학교 설립을 위한 학교부지 중 상가 및 택지로 조성될 45,000평 중 2,000평을 분양해 주겠다고 약정하고 2001. 11. 27.부터 2001. 12. 20.까지 3회에 걸쳐 개발비 명목으로 합계 6억 원을 교부받은 사실, 한편 ○○대학교 설립을 위한 재원이 마련되지 않아 학교 설립이 무산될 위기에 처하게 되자 피해자는 2003. 1.경부터 재심청구인에게 자신이 투자한 6억 원의 반환을 요구한 사실, 피해자는 재심청구인으로부터 위 금원을 전혀 반환받지 못하자 친구인 공소외 6으로부터 △△경찰서 정보보안과 소속 경찰공무원인 공소외 1을 소개받아 2003. 5. 30. 대구 서구 중리동 소재 자신이 운영하던 회사 사무실에서 직접 공소외 1을 만나게 된 사실, 공소외 1은 피해자로부터 그가 처한 상황에 관한 설명을 듣고 그 자리에서 재심청구인에게 전화를 걸어 “나는 △△경찰서 정보과에 근무하는 공소외 1 형사다. 공소외 2가 집안 동생인데 돈을 언제까지 해 줄 것이냐. 빨리 안 해 주면 상부에 보고하여 문제를 삼겠다.”라고 말한 사실, 이어서 공소외 1은 2003. 6. 3. 대구 서구청에서 재심청구인에 관한 호적등본, 주민등록초본, 주민등록등본을 발급받고 자신이 근무하는 △△경찰서 전산실에 재심청구인에 대한 범죄경력조회를 의뢰한 사실, 공소외 1은 2003. 6. 4.경 경주세계문화엑스포조직위원회 사무차장인 공소외 7( □□군 전 부군수), □□군청 기획감사실 경제통상팀장인 공소외 8 및 위 공소외 5에게 각 전화를 걸어 “재심청구인은 전과자이고, 주민등록이 말소된 사람인데 군청에서 그것도 확인하지 않고 계약을 체결하였느냐. 6억 원을 피해자에게 돌려주도록 재심청구인에게 조치를 취하여 달라.”라는 취지로 말한 사실, 공소외 1은 2003. 6. 12.경 피해자와 함께 □□군청을 찾아가 기획감사실장인 공소외 9와 위 공소외 8에게 “재심청구인은 전과자인데 왜 계약을 하였느냐, 피해자가 군청 행정계획을 믿고 재심청구인에게 6억 원을 사기 당하였으니 원만히 해결이 안 되면 언론에 고발조치를 취하든지 정보보고를 하여 문제를 삼겠다.”라고 말한 사실, 한편 재심청구인은 2003. 6. 16. 직권남용죄 등의 혐의로 공소외 1을 검찰에 고소하였고, 이에 공소외 1은 같은 달 19. 첩보보고를 하여 재심청구인에 대한 수사가 정식으로 개시된 사실, 재심청구인은 2004. 7. 13. 대구지방법원에서 특정경제범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(사기)죄 등으로 징역 4년을 선고받아(재심대상판결) 2005. 3. 25. 상고기각으로 위 형이 확정된 사실, 그 후 공소외 1은 위와 같이 피해자가 집안 동생이라고 거짓말을 하면서 피해자의 돈을 빨리 안 해 주면 상부에 보고하여 문제를 삼겠다고 말하여 협박한 행위 및 경상북도 □□군의 전·현직 공무원 등에게 재심청구인을 전과자라고 말하여 수사자료표의 내용을 누설한 행위로 인하여 협박죄 및 형의 실효 등에 관한 법률 위반죄로 2006. 8. 24. 대구지방법원 2005고단7219호 로 징역 8월에 집행유예 2년을 선고받았고, 이에 항소하여 2006. 12. 28. 대구지방법원 2006노2627호 로 벌금 300만 원을 선고받고 다시 상고하였으나 2007. 9. 28. 대법원 2007도606호 로 상고가 기각된 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although a decision on a request for retrial is made after hearing the opinion of the person who requested the retrial (Article 432 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the lower court did not provide the person who requested the retrial with an opportunity to state his opinion, and there are grounds for retrial under Articles 420 subparag. 5 and 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial. Therefore, the lower court’

3. Determination

A. As to the allegation that it was unlawful because it did not give an opportunity to state its opinion

According to the records, on January 10, 2007, the court below delivered a written request for opinion on retrial to a Msan prison under the custody of the applicant for a retrial (record 193), and on January 26, 2007, the applicant for a retrial submitted a written statement of opinion to the court below (record 194). Thus, the above assertion by the applicant for a retrial is without merit.

B. As to the existence of grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Examining the judgment of the court below on the existence of the grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the evidence presented by the applicant for a retrial does not constitute a new evidence to acknowledge innocence of the applicant for a retrial is justifiable and it is recognized that the above grounds for retrial do not exist. The above conclusion does not change even if the evidence submitted by the applicant for a retrial as of October 8, 2007 at the trial and the evidence (a written judgment and brief)

C. As to the existence of grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Article 420 Subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “When it is proved by a final judgment that a judge, a judge who has participated in the original judgment, the judgment prior to the trial, or an investigation based on the judgment, or a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer who has participated in the institution of a public prosecution or in an investigation based on which the public prosecution was based, commits a crime relating to his duties,” as one of the grounds for retrial. This, except for the substantive reasons that a mistake of facts in the original judgment, etc. is obviously inferred by the final judgment upon the occurrence of such occupational crime, would make the parties to a lawsuit or other related persons, as well as the general public feel suspicion about the establishment of the case, and make the public feel suspicion of the fairness of the trial, such suspicion removal of such

In addition, in determining whether a cause for a retrial under Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes a case, whether a crime concerning duties committed by a judicial police officer, etc. has a substantive relationship with a case, or whether a judicial police officer directly takes charge of an investigation of a criminal suspect is not a circumstance (Supreme Court Order 2004Mo16 Decided May 11, 2006). "Crimes concerning the duties of a judicial police officer" under Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not limited to crimes under Chapter 7 of Part II (Crimes concerning the Duties of Public Officials) of the Criminal Act, but it does not refer to all crimes committed by a judicial police officer with respect to a case in which a judicial police officer directly or indirectly participated in an investigation, and it shall not be deemed that it does not have any particular influence on the fairness of trial in light of the purport

Therefore, as to whether the above criminal act of Nonindicted Party 1 was "related to the duties of the judicial police officer who participated in the basic investigation of the public prosecution", the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 was convicted of the crime of intimidation and the crime of violation of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc. by disclosing the contents of the materials of investigation to the former and present public officials of Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, as a criminal suspect, and obtained a final judgment of conviction by disclosing the contents of the materials of investigation as a criminal suspect. However, as seen above, Nonindicted Party 1’s criminal act and the crime of violation of the Act on the Lapse of Criminal Procedure, etc. cannot be seen as having been suspected of not only the criminal act of this case but also the criminal act of this case and the criminal act of this case as a criminal suspect at the time of the above criminal act and the criminal investigation, and the victim’s identity was revealed as a criminal suspect.

In addition, according to the trial records of the judgment subject to a retrial, it can be known that Nonindicted 1’s criminal act had influenced the fairness of the judgment subject to a retrial, as such alleged by Nonindicted 1 during the trial process of the judgment subject to a retrial.

Therefore, the argument that there are grounds for a retrial under Article 420 subparagraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the immediate appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Kang-won (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)