[1] The meaning of Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act that a person who has paid a penalty shall not be punished again for the same offense

[2] In a case where an offender has paid the penalty upon receiving a notice of penalty payment, the scope of the act that does not become punished again under Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act

[3] Whether Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act applies to a criminal act committed at the same time and at a place as an offense but not constituting an offense (negative)

[4] Whether it constitutes double punishment to punish a person who has paid a penalty upon receiving a notice of a penalty due to a violation of the duty of safe driving as a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (negative)

[1] Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person in receipt of a notice of penalty payment under Article 118 of the Road Traffic Act shall not be punished again for the same offense in the event that the person pays the penalty. This shall be interpreted to acknowledge the validity corresponding to the final and conclusive judgment of penalty payment.

[2] In light of the contents and purport of the provisions on the notification and payment of penalty, it is reasonable to interpret that the fact that an offender is not subject to punishment as a result of recognizing the validity corresponding to the final judgment on the payment of penalty when he was notified of a penalty by the chief of a police station on the grounds that the offender committed an offense, and paid the penalty within the payment period, is limited to the relevant offense itself and the offenses recognized as identical to the offense.

[3] Even if an act was committed at the same time and place as the offense, the validity of the final judgment shall not extend to the criminal act committed beyond the identity of the offense, according to the payment of the penalty.

[4] The facts of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which caused an accident by negligence committed at the same time and at the same place, and the center line, and resulting in the injury to the victim, shall be deemed to be close to the time and place. However, it shall not be deemed as a separate act without being recognized as identical inasmuch as it is considerably different in terms of the content and form of the crime, legal interest and nature of the crime, and thus, even if the defendant paid a penalty following a notification disposition on the ground that he/she failed to perform his/her duty of safe driving, it shall be punished by the defendant as a crime of violation of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, thereby constituting a double punishment

[1] Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 117, 118, 119(1) and (3), and 120(1) of the Road Traffic Act / [3] Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act / [4] Articles 44 and 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 13(1) of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do2664 delivered on February 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 574)/ [4] Supreme Court Decision 83Do1296 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 120)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No9385 delivered on January 31, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the facts charged

around 17:00 on September 4, 1999, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle in Seoul 43Nu1438, and proceeded with the road in front of 824, Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seoul, 51Ma5786, which driven by the central line, caused the victim by the negligence of driving the motor vehicle in front of 824, the Defendant shocked the driver's river in Seoul 51Ma5786, which caused the victim to suffer from a confluoral and fluoral fluoral fluoral c

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below, based on the statement, etc. of the receipt of penalty bound in the public trial record, found the fact that the defendant was notified by the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the day to pay a penalty of KRW 40,00 in accordance with Articles 118 and 44 of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that he committed an offense for failing to perform his duty of safe driving in driving, at the time and place Seoul 43Nu1438, a vehicle in Seoul 438, at the same time and place as stated in the facts charged, and recognized the fact that the penalty was paid on the 17th day of the corresponding month,

Furthermore, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant should be acquitted on the ground that Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that where a person who received a notice of penalty payment under Article 118 of the same Act pays the penalty, the person shall not be punished again for the violation of the same Act. Since this purport is interpreted to recognize the validity corresponding to the validity of the final and conclusive judgement of the payment of penalty, the public prosecution in this case was instituted in violation of this provision, and thus the defendant should be sentenced

3. The judgment of this Court

Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who receives a penalty payment notification under Article 118 of the Act pays the penalty, shall not be punished again for the same offense. This purport is to recognize the validity corresponding to the final and conclusive judgment of penalty payment (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2664, Feb. 25, 1986).

However, Article 117 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a certain person among those who commit an offense shall be an offender as well as a certain person among those who commit an offense. Article 118 of the same Act provides that a chief of a police station may notify the person recognized as an offender of the payment of penalty with a penalty payment notice specifying the reasons therefor. Article 119 (1) of the same Act provides that any person who has received a penalty payment notice shall pay the penalty within 10 days to the National Treasury Bank, its branch office or agent designated by the Commissioner of the National Police Agency, or a post office, and Article 119 (3) of the same Act provides that any person who has paid the penalty pursuant to the above provisions shall not be punished again for the offense, and Article 120 (1) of the same Act provides that the chief of a police station shall request a summary judgment against a person who has not paid the penalty within the payment period.

In light of the contents and purport of the provisions on notification and payment of penalties, the traffic penalty system is a relatively minor offense that violates the Road Traffic Act, providing an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty in accordance with the administrative disposition prior to the criminal procedure with respect to the person who paid the penalty before the criminal procedure, and it is a procedure for prompt and simplified handling of the case without prosecution for the person who has paid the penalty, and there is a difference between the institutional and legal nature of the procedure for examining and determining whether the case was prosecuted through the criminal procedure.

In addition, deeming that res judicata of the original final and conclusive judgment would be excessive to the criminal facts recognized as identical to the facts charged in the final and conclusive judgment is based on the fact that the criminal facts recognized as identical to the facts charged are subject to a trial by the court through changes in indictment at any time, and that there is a risk of being convicted of being convicted. However, in a case where an offender is notified of the penalty due to an offense and pays it, the court proceedings do not commence, and there is no ground to regard the scope of the offense for which punishment is not to be imposed again in the final and conclusive judgment as the same as the scope of res

In light of the above circumstances, in a case where a penalty is paid after being notified of the penalty due to the act of violation under Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of violation is limited to the act of violation itself as stated in the reason for notification of the penalty and the act of violation that is recognized as identical to the same offense, and thus, it does not affect the validity of the final judgment in accordance with the payment of the penalty as to the criminal act that goes beyond the identity of the offense, even if the act was done at the same place, as the act of violation does not affect the validity of the final judgment in accordance with the payment of the penalty.

However, the act of violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents committed against the defendant merely because the defendant breached his duty of safe driving while driving a vehicle at the time and place stated in the facts charged. The defendant suffered injury by causing an accident by negligence by driving the vehicle at the time and place specified in the facts charged. The facts of the crime in this case, which was brought by the above act of violation and the prosecution, can be seen as close to time and place, but it is not recognized as a separate act because there is a significant difference in the contents and form of the crime, legal interest and nature of the crime, so even if the defendant paid the penalty in accordance with the notification disposition on the grounds that the defendant breached his duty of safe driving, it cannot be deemed as a crime of violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1296, Jul. 12, 1983).

On the contrary, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of res judicata following the payment of penalty and the scope of the same offense, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that the facts constituting the same offense and all criminal acts are identical in the same respect, based on which the validity of the final judgment recognizing the payment of penalty equivalent to the validity of the final judgment, are based on the same facts constituting the same offense, and thus, the court below accepted the claim in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor pointing this out as legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)