The meaning of "when clear evidence to acknowledge innocence" under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act is newly discovered.

In a case where clear evidence to acknowledge innocence under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act is newly discovered, the evidence which was not discovered or could not be produced or examined in the proceedings of the original judgment, and the value of such evidence should be objectively stated compared with other evidence, and it does not refer to evidence, the value of which is determined by the free evaluation of evidence by the judge.

Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 86Mo22 dated Feb. 11, 1987 (Gong1987,680) 88Mo38 dated Feb. 19, 1990 (Gong1990,1091) 90Mo50 dated Nov. 5, 1990 (Gong1991,670)

Defendant

Attorneys Cho Jong-sik et al.

Attorneys Cho Jong-sik et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 79No790 delivered on August 30, 1979

Seoul High Court Order 81Nu5 dated May 10, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a new evidence to acknowledge innocence is found" means any evidence which was not discovered in the litigation procedure of the finalized judgment or was not submitted or examined even if it was not found, and whose value of evidence should be objectively stated compared with other evidence, and it does not refer to evidence, the value of which is determined by the judge's free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 86Mo22, Feb. 11, 1987; Order 88Mo38, Feb. 19, 199).

According to the court below's order, among the evidence asserted by the claimant, the court below rejected the judgment below's conviction on the non-prosecution 1 and the non-indicted 1's witness examination report on the non-prosecution 1, which are identical to the statement of non-indicted 1's written testimony on the non-prosecution 1's crime in the judgment of the court below, or that on the non-indicted 1's written statement on the non-indicted 1's shipping-in and the cargo shipping-out report on the e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail in light of its contents, or that the value of evidence can only be determined by the judge's free evaluation. Second, the testimony on the ramond e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below and the contents of each evidence pointed out by the court below, we affirm the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law as to the application of Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act due to an error in the evaluation of evidence of the claimant's submission, as alleged in the arguments.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)