The meaning of "when clear evidence is newly discovered" under Article 420 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act

"When clear evidence is newly discovered" as provided in Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act means the case where evidence which was not discovered in or could not be submitted even after it was discovered in the litigation procedure in the finalized original judgment, and where evidence which shows that the value of the evidence is objectively superior to that of the final judgment in light of the empirical or logical rule, as the material to recognize the fact, is newly discovered.

Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 83Mo11 dated April 7, 1983 (Gong1983,842) 83Mo26 dated May 26, 1983 (Gong1983,1045) 84Mo46 dated July 27, 1984 (Gong1984,1470)

Appellants

Attorney Park Yong-hwan

Seoul District Court Order 94Reno2 dated March 29, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for re-appeal of the requester and defense counsel are examined.

"When clear evidence is newly discovered" under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act means evidence that was not discovered in or could not be submitted even after it was discovered in the litigation procedures in the finalized original judgment, and whose value of the evidence is objectively superior to that of the empirical rule or logical rule, rather than that of the evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 84Mo46, Jul. 24, 1984).

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged that the applicant for a retrial made a charge of forging receipts under the name of the applicant for a retrial for the purpose of having the applicant for a retrial punished, even though the court ordered the applicant for a retrial to prepare a receipt of the above case directly from the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person in charge of the examination, and the applicant for a retrial filed a complaint of forgery of receipts under the name of the applicant for a retrial. The court below found that the applicant for a retrial did not have any suspicion of false accusation in the prosecutor's office, and found that the above receipts were forged, and thus, the court below's judgment that there was no ground for retrial as to the above facts, such as the violation of Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court below's decision that the defendant's right to request a retrial was no more than 5 years since the statute of limitations for a crime of destruction of evidence was completed on July 21, 1992.

In addition, it is evident that the receipt was forged by considering different types of writing as compared with each receipt submitted in a civil lawsuit (Seoul District Court's case of the total amount claim No. 86 Ghana1318 and the Seoul District Court's case of the total amount claim No. 85da10466) between the applicant for a retrial and the Western Court's case of the Seoul District Court's case of the total amount claim).

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)