logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 8. 14.자 85모25 결정
[재심청구기각결정에대한재항고][공1985.10.15.(762),1310]
Main Issues

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

Summary of Decision

The term "when clear evidence is newly discovered" as provided in Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act means evidence which was not discovered in, or could not be submitted even after it was discovered in, the litigation procedures in the finalized original judgment, and which shows that the final judgment is more objectively superior to that of the empirical or logical rule than that of the final judgment.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 84Mo55 Dated October 16, 1984

Re-appellant

Re-appellant

United States of America

Busan District Court Order 84Hun1 dated July 1, 1985

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

"When clear evidence is newly discovered" as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act means evidence which 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 such evidence is objectively superior to that of the final judgment in light of the empirical rule or logical rule, rather than that of the fact-finding data. In the above purport, the court below is clear that part of the loan card ledger and the cash receipt and disbursements ledger, which the court below newly discovered, are evidence before the final judgment, and there is no objective ground to view that the value of such evidence is superior to that of the evidence which the above final judgment has already been delivered to the court, and the remaining evidence cannot be found in light of the reasons for its explanation. Thus, the rejection of the request for retrial of this case is just and it cannot be said that there is a violation of theory.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)

arrow