[1] Criteria for determining the identity of facts charged or facts charged

[2] The meaning of the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the scope of the effect corresponding to the final judgment

[3] The case holding that the validity of the above penalty payment does not extend to the above facts charged on the grounds that the offense of "infinite disturbance" for which a penalty was paid by a notification disposition under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the facts charged of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act do not coincide with the basic facts

[1] Whether the facts charged or criminal facts are identical should be determined by taking into account the normative elements of the defendant's act and the social factual relations based on the legal functions of the identity of the facts.

[2] The penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty in accordance with a notification disposition given by the chief of a police station prior to the criminal procedure, prior to the criminal procedure, and provides special cases concerning punishment for the simple, prompt and appropriate handling of the case without prosecution, differs from the trial procedure of the court in terms of institutional purport and legal nature. Furthermore, the scope recognized as effective equivalent to the final judgment following the payment of penalty is limited to the pertinent offense as stated in the reason for notification of penalty and the offense recognized as identical to the said offense. Therefore, even if the act was committed during the same period and at the same place as the offense, the effect of res judicata corresponding to the final judgment shall not extend to the criminal act committed beyond the identity of the offense.

[3] The case holding that the criminal facts of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which committed an act of violation of Article 1 subparagraph 26 (a disturbance, etc.) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and two knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

[1] Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; Articles 298(1) and 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 13(1) of the Constitution / [3] Articles 1 subparag. 26 and 7(3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; Articles 2(1)3 and 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 298(1) and 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080 Decided March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1368), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2642 Decided July 11, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1747), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6390 Decided January 13, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 251), Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4785 Decided October 14, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2113) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do849 Decided November 22, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 267), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3274 decided Apr. 27, 2007)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney normal Jin-jin

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009No1851 Decided October 28, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. The facts charged in this case and the summary of the relevant offenses

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant, at around 11:50 on June 11, 2008, caused an injury to the victim's knife, such as damage to the right side knife system outside the right side knife part, which is a deadly weapon in the middle of the customary market in Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter omitted), and caused the victim's knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

B. Summary of the relevant offenses

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant was notified by the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the same day to pay a penalty of KRW 30,000 on June 11, 2008 and paid it on the 12th day of the same month on the grounds that he committed an offense under Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act within the toilet located in the ○○ customary market located in Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter omitted).

2. The judgment of the court below

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that: (a) the instant facts charged and the instant offense for which the Defendant paid a penalty are identical to the place and time of the crime; and (b) the Defendant was committed in a series of processes of assaulting the victim during a series of disputes arising from the occupation of occupation; and thus, (c) the motive and the other party of the crime are identical. Accordingly, the lower court determined that both facts are identical to the relevant facts. Accordingly, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment following the

3. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

The identity of facts charged or facts constituting an offense ought to be determined based on the Defendant’s act and the relevant social factual relationship in mind with the legal function of the identity of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6390, Jan. 13, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4785, Oct. 14, 2010).

Meanwhile, the penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act differs from the trial procedure of the court in terms of institutional purport and legal nature in that it provides special cases for punishment for the payment of a certain amount of penalty without prosecution against a person who pays the penalty by providing an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty pursuant to a notification disposition by the chief of a police station, etc. prior to the criminal procedure. Furthermore, the scope recognized as effective due to the payment of a penalty is limited to the relevant offense itself and the offense recognized as identical to the offense committed on the grounds of notification of the penalty. Therefore, even if the act was committed during the same period and place as the offense, the effect of res judicata corresponding to the final judgment shall not extend to the criminal act committed beyond the identity of the offense (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do849, Nov. 22, 2002).

According to the facts and records seen earlier, the Defendant’s act of carrying a deadly weapon, which is the charge of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, is partially overlapped in that the place and time of the crime are close to the place and the time of the crime, and both the Defendant and the victim appear to have been cut off at the expense of the victim.

However, the offense under Article 1 subparag. 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which applies to the defendant, is "the act of causing excessive damage to neighbors, such as musical instruments, radio, television, electric gramophone, loudspeaker, electrical motor, etc." while the act of causing a serious damage to the human body by carrying two knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, which is a lethal weapon, is very different in the contents, means, and attitudes of the offense. In addition, compared to the act of protecting the peace and order of society as the protected legal interest of an unspecified person, the damage by carrying a lethal weapon is entirely different in terms of the legal interest of the person's physical freedom and completeness. Furthermore, in light of the contents, means, attitudes, etc. of the offense, and the facts charged in this case, it is reasonable to view that the act of this case or the act of causing damage to the human body can normally be seen as constituting an offense in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above offense pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the above offense and the facts charged in this case are identical to the facts charged in this case, and thus, the validity of the penalty payment for the above offense extends to the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the identity of the offense and the validity of the res judicata due to the payment of the penalty

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment 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.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)