In a case where a person who was acquitted on the ground that he was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing an offense after having been detained on the ground of having been detained due to an emergency arrest due to the continued existence of her mother, was released from criminal compensation claim for the above confinement, the case dismissing the claim for criminal compensation on the ground that her her her f

In a case where a person who was detained and released on the grounds of mental disorder after having been detained on the grounds of an emergency arrest due to his/her existence and injury on the ground of his/her mother was found not guilty, the case dismissing the claim for criminal compensation in light of the ambiguous aspect and the concept of justice, on the basis of Article 3 of the Criminal Compensation Act, which provides that where the claimant was found not guilty on the grounds of Article 10(1)(s) of the Criminal Act, etc., the court may dismiss at his/her discretion all or part of the claim for compensation, on the basis of Article 3 of the Criminal Compensation Act, which provides that the claimant may dismiss at his/her discretion all or part of the claim for compensation.

Article 3 of the Criminal Compensation Act, Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act

Claimant

Busan High Court Decision 2006No307 decided Nov. 1, 2006

The instant claim on criminal compensation is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. On September 15, 2005, the claimant was detained for an emergency arrest due to a charge of remaining death of his mother, who is the applicant, and on November 2, 2005, he was prosecuted for the Busan District Court 2005Gohap513 on November 2, 2005. The above court found him guilty on December 23, 2005 and sentenced him for seven years.

B. Although the claimant filed an appeal but the appeal was dismissed, the appeal was filed, and the Supreme Court (2006Do1854) reversed the judgment below on June 2, 2006 on the ground that “It is highly probable to deem that the claimant was in a state of lacking judgment ability to distinguish between the defectiveness of things and the time when the crime was committed.”

C. On November 1, 2006, this Court (2006No307) rendered a judgment of November 1, 2006 that the claimant was not guilty of the claimant at the time of committing the crime. Accordingly, the claimant was released on the same day, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 9, 2006 because the prosecutor did not file an appeal.

2. The claimant's assertion;

In the above case, the appellant was detained from September 15, 2005 to November 1, 2006, and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, the State asserts that the appellant should pay the sum of KRW 22,682,920 as daily income, KRW 5,00,000 as consolation money, and KRW 27,682,92,920 as criminal compensation.

3. Determination

According to the above facts, the claimant was rendered not guilty in the general procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the defendant was placed under pre-trial detention as above, there is a claim for criminal compensation.

However, according to Article 3 of the Criminal Compensation Act, where an appellant has been acquitted on the ground of Article 10(1)(s) of the Criminal Act, the court may dismiss all or part of the claim for compensation at its discretion. Although the appellant was in a state of mental disorder, he/she committed an act of killing his/her kind of child-friendly her own knife with a knife and a knife atmosphere without any mistake, and thus, he/she cannot accept the claimant’s claim for criminal compensation in light of his/her human character and the concept of justice.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for criminal compensation of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jung-chul (Presiding Judge)