[1] The meaning of "not guilty verdict" under Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Compensation Act

[2] The case holding that in a case where the appellate court found the defendant guilty of the conjunctive charges and did not decide not guilty on the grounds of the primary charges, the appellate court acknowledged the defendant's right to criminal compensation on the ground that most of the days of detention are necessary for the investigation and examination of the primary charges for which the verdict of innocence was rendered

[1] It is not a formal logical interpretation that the phrase “not guilty has been tried” under Article 1(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act means only a case where a verdict of innocence has been pronounced in the text of the judgment, but rather, it is reasonable to interpret that criminal compensation can be claimed in the same way as the case where a verdict of innocence has been rendered in the text of the judgment where there is a number of days under detention, which can be deemed necessary for the investigation and trial of the portion of the judgment of not guilty, even in cases where the judgment of acquittal has not been pronounced

[2] In a case where the appellate court found the defendant guilty of the conjunctive charges and did not decide the innocence on the grounds of the primary charges, the case affirming the right to criminal compensation on the ground that most of the days of pre-trial detention is necessary for the investigation and examination of the primary charges that have been judged not guilty.

[1] Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 1(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act / [2] Article 28 of the Constitution, Articles 1(1), 4(1) and (2) of the Criminal Compensation Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Compensation Act

Claimant

Park Dong-Jin Park

Seoul High Court Decision 2004No2930 decided September 30, 2005

Applicant 17,700,000 won shall be paid to the applicant.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2004, the claimant was detained in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and was prosecuted on August 11, 2004, and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years from the Seoul District Court (2004Gohap971) on October 22, 2004.

B. The claimant appealed to the court of first instance on March 29, 2005, and was released on bail by this court (2004No2930) (the petitioner was detained on bail for 237 days from August 5, 2004 to March 29, 2005). The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the facts in violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act to the ancillary facts on September 14, 2005. On September 30, 2005, the court affirmed the amendment of the indictment on the same day. On September 30, 2005, the court found the petitioner guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is the ancillary facts added by the appellate court, and did not contain a fine of KRW 3 million and KRW 150,000,000,000 and KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000).

C. On July 6, 2006, the appellant appealed to the above appellate judgment and withdrawn the appeal on the same day, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.

2. Appellant’s assertion and judgment

A. The claimant's assertion

The claimant asserts that, among total 237 days of detention due to the above defendant's case, the remaining 177 days of detention was detained in prison, excluding 60 days included in the period of detention in the workhouse with respect to the above fine. Thus, the State is obliged to pay 20,107,200 won (the amount calculated on the basis of the daily minimum wage amount of 22,720 won under the Minimum Wage Act, which applies from September 2004 to August 2005) for the above 17 days to the claimant.

B. Determination on the existence of criminal compensation claim

(1) Article 28 of the Constitution provides that “When a person detained as a criminal suspect or a criminal defendant has received a disposition of non-prosecution 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 1(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act provides that “If a person who has received a judgment of not guilty in the general procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, retrial, or extraordinary appeal procedure has been detained under detention, he/she may claim compensation for such detention against the State pursuant to this Act.” The purport of the provision and purport of the Constitution is that a person who has received detention or execution of a sentence in a criminal procedure shall be entitled to legitimate compensation for damages sustained by the State, regardless of the public official’s intention or negligence. In light of the foregoing, the provision and purport of the Constitution, etc., it shall not be interpreted in the form of logic that “the person who has received a judgment of not guilty” in the text of the judgment means a case where the court rendered a judgment of not guilty, and even if the judgment does not contain a judgment of not guilty only for the reasons, it should be interpreted as in the order of detention.

(2) According to the records of this case, since August 5, 2004, at the time when the claimant was first summoned and investigated into the prosecutor's office and detained, the claimant consistently asserted that "the amount received is real estate brokerage commission and not received under the pretext of solicitation to the public officials." The defendant confessions the violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, which was pronounced guilty, and focuses on whether the claimant committed the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by denying the crime, and whether the most of the investigation and the trial were charged with the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. On March 29, 2005, the claimant added the violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act to September 14, 2005, which was later released by the court's ruling on bail on September 14, 2005, and the court should no longer deliberate after permitting the change of indictment, and the court sentenced the judgment on the 30th of the same month. In light of the above investigation and trial process, it is necessary to view that the remaining days of detention should be included in the period of detention 17 days.

C. Determination of compensation amount

Taking account of all the circumstances stipulated in Article 4(2) of the Criminal Compensation Act, such as the type and period of detention, the degree of loss incurred during the period of detention, mental suffering, the age of the claimant, occupation and living standard, etc., the compensation for the petitioner’s pre-trial detention should be calculated as KRW 100,000 per day within the scope of five times the minimum wage amount under the Minimum Wage Act of July 6, 2006, which is the daily wage under the Minimum Wage Act of 24,800,000, which is the minimum wage amount under the Minimum Wage Act of July 6, 2006, for all 177 days of detention for which the requester seeks.

Therefore, the sum of the amounts to be compensated by the State is 17,700,000 won (x 177,000 won).

3. Conclusion

The petitioner's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition and is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jae-ap (Presiding Judge)