The purport of "the compensation order system" and the measures to be taken by the fact-finding court in a case where it is not known that the defendant submitted a written agreement that he/she agreed on civil liability with the applicant for compensation in the trial process, and the content of the written agreement alone does not reveal any specific agreement about the defendant's civil liability.

Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that the compensation order pursuant to the provisions of Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be a system that intends to specify the amount of damage to the direct property of the victim caused by the criminal act of the defendant and order the compensation of the defendant only in cases where the amount of damage is clearly set and the scope of the liability of the defendant is clear. Under the provisions of Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings, if the existence or scope of the liability of the defendant is unclear, the compensation order shall not be issued, and in such cases, the application for compensation shall be dismissed pursuant to the provisions of Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement, etc. of Legal Proceedings. In light of these purport, if the defendant submitted a written agreement that the defendant agreed with the applicant for compensation and the contents of the written agreement alone, it is reasonable to examine the existence or scope of the liability of the defendant.

Articles 25(1), 25(3)3, and 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Supreme Court Decision 96Do945 Decided June 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2268) Supreme Court Decision 201Do4194 Decided June 10, 2011, Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7144 Decided August 30, 2012

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jae-ho

Applicant for Compensation

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013No631 decided July 29, 2013

The appeal concerning the accused case among the judgment below is dismissed. The part concerning the compensation order among the judgment below is revoked, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, and the judgment of the court below has affected the conclusion of the judgment, or the amount of the punishment has been extremely unreasonable. Thus, in this case where three months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year and four months have been pronounced against the defendant, the argument that the defendant did not deceive the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 corporation, or omitted a judgment on the circumstances favorable to the defendant with the intent that the amount of the punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, even after examining the record, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as

2. Regarding the compensation order

A. The compensation order pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is a system that intends to promote the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply in cases where the amount of damage is specified to the direct property damage suffered by the victim by the criminal act of the defendant and the scope of the defendant's compensation is clear. According to Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings, where the existence or scope of the defendant's compensation liability is unclear, the compensation order shall not be issued, and in such cases, the application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Do945, Jun. 11, 1996; 201Do4194, Jun. 10, 2011).

In light of this purpose, if the defendant submitted a written agreement that he/she agreed with the applicant for compensation in the process of trial, and the contents of the written agreement alone do not know the detailed agreement about the defendant's civil liability, such as whether the applicant for compensation has received repayment, it would be reasonable to examine the existence or scope of the defendant's liability by examining the details of the written agreement, not immediately citing the amount first applied by the applicant for compensation, but examining the specific contents of the written agreement.

B. According to the records, the Defendant’s submission of “agreement and withdrawal of complaint” to the lower court, stating that the Defendant prepared by the applicant for compensation “I fully withdraw the complaint because both the Defendant and the Defendant have agreed solely on the basis of their civil and criminal intent. In addition, the Defendant’s submission of the “agreement and withdrawal of complaint” to the lower court.

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, the lower court should have deliberated on the details of the agreement on the Defendant’s civil liability and examined the existence or scope of the Defendant’s liability for damages. Therefore, if the lower court did not reach this and recognized the amount first applied as the compensation amount, the lower court would have determined by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the compensation order, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, among the judgment below, the appeal against the accused case is dismissed, and the compensation order part of the judgment below is revoked in accordance with Article 33(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)