The significance of the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act / Where the chief of police station has made a notification disposition against the offense, and the penalty payment period specified in the notification disposition has not expired, in principle, a summary judgment cannot be requested, and whether the prosecutor is not able to institute a public prosecution against the same offense (affirmative)

In Chapter III of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, notice disposition (Article 7), payment of penalty (Articles 8 and 8-2), and disposition of non-compliance with the notification disposition (Article 9) are stipulated in Chapter III of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. Any person who receives a notice disposition from the chief of a police station shall pay the penalty within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notification disposition, and any person who fails to pay the penalty within the said period shall pay an amount calculated by adding 20/100 to the notified penalty within 20 days from the date following the last day of the said period (Article 8(1) and (2) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act). The chief of a police station shall, without delay, file a request for summary judgment against the person who fails to pay the penalty within the payment period stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Article 9(1)2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act); if the person files a request for summary judgment after paying the penalty plus 50/100 of the notified penalty before the said person is declared, the person shall not file a request for summary (3).

In light of the aforementioned provisions and the legislative purport of the notification disposition, the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides for special cases concerning punishment for those who pay a penalty pursuant to the notification disposition by the chief of a police station prior to the criminal procedure against the offense, and the trial procedure of the court differs from the institutional purport and legal nature of the procedure. In addition, even if an offender fails to comply with the notification disposition, the court’s judicial procedure differs from the institutional purpose and legal nature, recognizing the exceptions to the principle of disinfection, thereby promoting litigation economy by simple, speedy and timely handling the case without undergoing the trial through a summary judgment request by the chief of a police station, while allowing the offender to be exempted from criminal punishment if the penalty is paid before the pronouncement of the judgment.

Therefore, as long as the chief of a police station made a notification disposition with respect to the same offense, in principle, the chief of a police station is prohibited from claiming a summary judgment until the penalty payment period prescribed by the notification disposition is paid in order to guarantee the above procedural status of the offender, and the prosecutor also cannot institute a public prosecution against

Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Article 7, Article 8, Article 8-2, Article 9(1)2, Article 9(2) and (3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2012Do612 Decided September 13, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1712)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Dong-dong

Daejeon District Court Decision 2017No1462 Decided August 10, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Chapter III of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides for the disposition of notification (Article 7), payment of penalty (Articles 8 and 8-2), and the disposition of non-compliance with the disposition (Article 9). Any person who receives a notification of penalty from the chief of a police station within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notification of penalty, and any person who fails to pay the penalty within the said period shall pay the penalty plus 20/100 of the notified penalty within 20 days from the date following the last day of the said period (Article 8(1) and (2) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act). The chief of a police station shall, without delay, file a request for summary judgment against the person who fails to pay the penalty within the payment period provided for in Article 8(2) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Article 9(1)2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act); and Article 8(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Article 9(3) of the same Act).

Considering the contents of the aforementioned provision and the legislative purport of the notification disposition, the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides for special cases concerning punishment for those who pay a penalty pursuant to the notification disposition by the chief of a police station prior to the criminal procedure against the offense, which does not prosecute the payer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6612, Sept. 13, 2012). Furthermore, even if the offender fails to comply with the notification disposition, the procedure of the court’s trial differs from the institutional purport and legal nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6612, Sept. 13, 2012). Furthermore, even if the offender did not comply with the notification disposition, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of disinfection, thereby promoting the economy of litigation by simple, speedy and timely handling the case without undergoing

Therefore, as long as the chief of a police station made a notification disposition with respect to the same offense, in principle, the chief of a police station is prohibited from claiming a summary judgment until the penalty payment period prescribed by the notification disposition is paid in order to guarantee the above procedural status of the offender, and the prosecutor also cannot institute a public prosecution against

2. The lower court determined as follows. As to the fraud case of the first instance court 2017Kadan387, which the Defendant acquired food without the intention or ability to pay the price, the chief of a police station notified the same offense as the above facts charged, and the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution before the period for payment of the penalty expires. Such public prosecution falls under the time when the procedure is in violation of the provisions of a law and becomes null and void, and thus the public prosecution ought to be dismissed.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower judgment is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on notification disposition and summary judgment under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

3. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)