[1] The purpose of Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for a judgment dismissing a public prosecution in the case of double indictment

[2] The extent of the effect of the indictment for habitual offenders

[3] The case holding that a public prosecution against the second habitual fraud crime constitutes a double indictment in case where a decision to recover the right to request formal trial against the previous summary order was made even though the second habitual fraud crime was prosecuted again after the summary order was issued for the first habitual fraud crime

[1] Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 347 and 351 of the Criminal Act, Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Articles 347 and 351 of the Criminal Act, Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do1698 decided Oct. 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3370) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2196 decided Jul. 24, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2015)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004No934 delivered on May 21, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

The purpose of Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for a judgment dismissing a public prosecution in the case of double prosecution, is to prevent the defendant from being subject to double danger and from rendering two substantive judgments with respect to the same case (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1698, Oct. 11, 196). In habitual crimes, the effect of a public prosecution on the whole criminal facts identical to the criminal facts in which the public prosecution is instituted, and the scope of the prosecution effective shall be based on the final decision at the time of the final decision at which there is a possibility of factual deliberation. Thus, once a public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution for habitual fraud and then instituted a public prosecution for part of fraud until the time of the above standard having the effect of the public prosecution as separate habitual fraud, it cannot be permitted as it constitutes a double prosecution for the same case (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do16961, Jul. 24, 201). 201

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the above summary order on June 12, 200 and rendered a summary order of 3 million won on July 26, 2002, which became final and conclusive on November 23, 2002, on the facts that the defendant had been habitually guilty of drinking without drinking, and that the above summary order was not issued on December 17, 2003 by the Seoul Northern District Court's summary Order which became final and conclusive on December 201, which became final and conclusive on the same facts charged by the prosecutor's summary order on the ground that the defendant's request for recovery of the defendant's right to request formal trial was accepted on the above summary order on December 17, 200, and the facts that the above summary order was issued on October 29, 2002, which became final and conclusive on the same facts charged by the prosecutor's summary order, and thus, the defendant was not subject to a summary order of 200 million won on October 28, 2002.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)