A. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the name of the crime, was pronounced not guilty on the grounds of the judgment that became the subject of claim for compensation, and thus, the case constitutes “the case where the judgment of innocence becomes final and conclusive” under Article 194-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding cost compensation.

B. In the case of compensation for expenses, Article 26(1)1 of the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act (hereinafter “Criminal Compensation Act”) should be applied mutatis mutandis to “a case where, even if a judgment dismissing a public prosecution was rendered, there would have been a significant reason to be tried not guilty if there would not have been any reason to be tried.”

2. Determination

A. The compensation for expenses is claimed by a person who was the defendant in the pertinent case claiming compensation for expenses incurred in the trial (Article 194-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act), unlike the case of confinement compensation (Article 194-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in the case of compensation for expenses, it is not possible to claim compensation in a case where the person who was the defendant in the instant case has received judgment of non-guilty

In addition, Article 194-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the claim for compensation for expenses, procedures for compensation for expenses, relationship with compensation for expenses under other Acts, and compensation for expenses to the heir who was the defendant, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, shall follow the example of compensation under the Criminal Compensation Act.” As long as Article 194-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act expressly provides for the requirements for compensation for expenses as above, it is difficult to view that the requirements for compensation for detention under the Criminal Compensation Act are applied mutatis mutandis as the requirements for compensation for expenses.

We affirm the judgment of the court below to the same purport.

B.1) However, Article 28 of the Constitution provides that “When a person who is a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant detained has received a disposition of non-guilty or a judgment of not guilty as determined by law, he/she may file a claim for reasonable compensation with the State, as determined by law.” Accordingly, the Criminal Compensation Act extends the scope of compensation by providing that the State may claim compensation for detention if there is not only a judgment of not guilty but also a judgment of not guilty but also a judgment of not guilty or dismissing a public prosecution, if there is a substantial reason to receive a judgment of not guilty in the absence of such grounds for the said judgment. In full view of the foregoing, the “judgment of not guilty” under Article 194-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act includes not only the judgment of not guilty in the form, but also the so-called “judgment of not guilty” under Article 194-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act includes the case of not guilty in the form of a judgment of not guilty where there is a substantial reason to be acquitted if

2) However, according to the record, in a case that is the subject of a claim for compensation, the appellant was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was a purpose of retaliation against the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant was acquitted on the part of the judgment on the ground that an agreement containing the intent not to punish the victim was submitted to the investigation agency prior to the institution of public prosecution, and the part of the judgment can be seen as constituting a crime based on relevant evidence, such as confession by the appellant.

In light of these circumstances, even if the so-called “judgment of innocence” under Article 194-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act includes the case of the so-called “judgment of innocence”, it is deemed that the appellant would have been convicted of the crime of assault if there was no reason to dismiss the public prosecution. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the case subject to the claim for compensation falls under the case where there was a substantial reason to be acquitted if the

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Shin Dong-dong Constitutional Court (Presiding Justice)