A. In a case where the execution of a fine that became final and conclusive on the basis of the prosecutor’s order was commenced, but the execution of a fine that became impossible on the grounds that the seized object does not have any surplus other than the execution cost even if it is realized (negative), whether the interruption of prescription is extinguished, and whether the execution of a detention in a workhouse for the unpaid person of

B. Whether an objection filed under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act is permitted after the execution of the judgment is completed (negative)

(a) If a chief executive officer initiates the execution of an order issued by the prosecutor for the execution of a final and conclusive fine, the statute of limitations for fines shall be suspended (Article 80 of the Criminal Code). In this case, even if the seized object is liquidated but it is impossible to execute it on the ground that there is no surplus other than the execution cost, the interruption of prescription which has already occurred shall not become invalid, and therefore, the unpaid person of the fine may execute detention in a workhouse in accordance with Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The filing of an objection under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act is to correct the prosecutor’s disposition on the execution of a trial, and it is not permitted for the filing of an objection due to no practical benefit after the execution

A. Article 80 of the Criminal Act, Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Busan High Court Order 92Ro3 dated July 10, 1992

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. If a chief executive officer commences the execution of a fine based on the order of a prosecutor to execute a final and conclusive fine, the period of prescription for the fine is suspended (Article 80 of the Criminal Act). In this case, even if the seized object is liquidated but it is impossible to execute the fine on the ground that it does not have surplus other than the execution cost, the effect of the interruption of prescription that has already occurred shall not be extinguished. Therefore, as to the unpaid person of the fine, it is not only that the execution of detention can be carried out by the Criminal Procedure Act

In the same purport, the lower court’s rejection of the Re-Appellant’s assertion that the prosecutor’s disposition of detention in the workplace of this case had grounds for objection under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act is justifiable, and there are no errors in the judgment below, and the grounds for appeal against the prosecution are either the allegations in the lower court or the conclusion of this case. All arguments are without merit.

2. Meanwhile, an objection filed pursuant to Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act is to correct a prosecutor's disposition on the execution of a trial, and it is not permitted to file an objection after the execution of a trial has already been completed. According to the records, it can be known that the execution of detention of the re-appellant's fine has already been completed on December 30, 191, and therefore, the objection of this case has no reason.

3. The reappeal is eventually dismissed as it does not appear to be any one, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.