Whether a public prosecution is a ground for a request for retrial by asserting that the indictment was false and supporting documents without specific grounds for request for retrial.

In order to file a petition for retrial against a judgment dismissing an appeal, Article 420 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a petition for retrial may be filed only in cases where there are grounds provided for in subparagraphs 1, 2 and 7 of Article 420 of the same Act, and specifically, it does not mean that a prosecution has been instituted unreasonably without claiming the above grounds for a petition for retrial and that a trial has been erroneous because the indictment was false and documentary evidence has been made.

Article 421 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 83Hu2 dated July 16, 1983

A

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2751 Delivered on December 27, 1983

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Article 420 subparag. 1, 2, and 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act (i) When evidence or evidence in the original judgment is proved to be forged or altered by a final judgment; (ii) when testimony, appraisal, interpretation, or translation on evidence in the original judgment has been proved to be false by a final judgment; and (iii) when it is proved by a final judgment that a public prosecutor or judicial police officer who has participated in the institution of a public prosecution by a judge in the previous judgment, the judgment, or an investigation based on the judgment, or who has participated in the investigation based on the original judgment has committed an offense in connection with his/her duties, has been proved by a final judgment: Provided, That in cases where a public prosecution has been instituted against a judge, a public prosecutor, or a judicial police officer prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment, limited to cases where the court in the original judgment did not know the grounds therefor)

However, according to the reasons for the request for retrial of this case, it is clear that a public prosecution has been instituted automatically without claiming the above reasons for request for retrial, and that there has been fraudulent and evidential documents have been cited.

Therefore, the request for retrial is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)