A. Whether the dismissal of a public prosecution against the same crime constitutes a case where the public prosecution is more severe than that recognized in the original judgment under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. The meaning of "the original judgment" under Article 420 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act “a crime more severe than a crime recognized in original judgment” is a separate crime from a crime for which the original judgment has been recognized, and where a public prosecution can be dismissed for the same crime as a crime whose statutory punishment is minor, it does not constitute a minor crime.

B. Article 420 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the judgment of another cited in recognizing the facts that have been adopted as evidence among the reasons in the original judgment and constitute the crime.

A. Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 420 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act)

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Do2809 delivered on February 26, 1985

South Korean Armed Forces

Attorney Cho Nam-sik

Seoul Criminal Court Order 86Ro1 dated April 11, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act "a crime more severe than a crime recognized in original judgment" is a separate crime from a crime for which the original judgment has been recognized, and where a public prosecution can be dismissed for the same crime as a crime whose statutory penalty refers to a minor crime, it does not constitute a minor crime. Therefore, the argument on this issue is without merit.

2. "Judgment of the original judgment" in subparagraph 4 of the same Article refers to the judgment of the other cited in recognizing the facts which were adopted as evidence among the reasons in the original judgment and which became the crime. The re-appellant's appeal against co-defendant in the original judgment and the judgment of the final appeal against the co-defendant in the original judgment are clearly stated in the record that the judgment of the appellate court and the final appeal against the co-defendant in the original judgment were not adopted as evidence during the original judgment

3. Therefore, the reappeal of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)