In a case where a not-guilty verdict was rendered on the grounds of judgment, whether a not-guilty verdict on the part of pre-trial detention is entitled to claim compensation for the part deemed necessary for the investigation and trial (affirmative), and whether the court may dismiss in its discretion all or part of the claim for compensation in accordance with Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act by analogy (affirmative)

Article 28 of the Constitution provides, “When a person who is a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant and is detained has received a non-prosecution disposition or a judgment of not guilty as prescribed by Act, he/she may claim reasonable compensation from the State under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Article 2(1) of the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act (hereinafter “Criminal Compensation Act”) provides, “When a defendant in a case finalized after having received a verdict of not guilty in the general procedure, retrial or extraordinary appeal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, he/she may claim compensation for detention against the State in accordance with this Act.” This provision of the Criminal Compensation Act provides, “Where a person who has received a judgment of not guilty is detained pending trial until the trial is held, in light of the legislative purport, purpose, and contents, etc. of the Act, he/she may claim compensation if the person who has received a judgment of not guilty is detained pending trial until the trial is held, and even if the judgment of not guilty on the grounds of the judgment, he/she may claim compensation for the part of the judgment of not guilty among the pre-trial detention, by analogy of Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Compensation Act.

Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 2(1) and Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 2014Ro315 dated September 19, 2014

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 28 of the Constitution provides that "When a person who is a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant and is detained has received a non-prosecution disposition or a judgment of not guilty as prescribed by Act, he/she may file a claim for reasonable compensation with the State, as prescribed by Act." Article 2(1) of the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act (hereinafter "Criminal Compensation Act") provides that "When a defendant in a case finalized after having received a verdict of 'not guilty' in the general procedure, retrial, or extraordinary appeal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, he/she may file a claim for compensation for detention with the State in accordance with this Act." This provision of the Criminal Compensation Act provides that "Where a person who has received a judgment of 'not guilty' has been detained pending trial until the judgment is rendered, in light of the legislative purport, purpose, and contents thereof, he/she may file a claim for compensation if he/she is detained pending trial until the judgment is rendered, and in cases where a judgment of 'not guilty' is rendered on the grounds of the judgment, he/she may claim compensation with respect to the part found not guilty in the judgment.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant, who was indicted on October 30, 2013 by the Seoul Western District Court 2013Ma2795, stated that he/she was guilty of the 20th anniversary of the charge that he/she occupied the victim's cash at around 22:40 on August 31, 2013, as his/her employee at the convenience store of Yongsan-gu, Seoul (SU omitted), who was sentenced to a fine of 1:30,000 won for the crime of larceny (hereinafter referred to as "the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act"), and was sentenced to a fine of 2:30,000 won for the crime of larceny (hereinafter referred to as "the 200,000 won for the crime of larceny"), and was sentenced to a fine of 1:30,000 won for the crime of larceny on December 11, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 201.37,000).

Examining such factual relations in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Re-Appellant was found not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act on the grounds of the judgment, and thus, the Re-Appellant is entitled to claim compensation pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled that the case where the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the grounds that the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, which is the primary charge, and sentenced a guilty verdict on the embezzlement of stolen property, which is the primary charge, cannot be deemed to constitute "the case where a verdict of innocence was rendered" as provided by Article 2 (1) of the Criminal Compensation Act. The court below's order is erroneous in the misapprehension of Article 2 (1) of the Criminal Compensation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for reappeal

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)