Constitutional Court: Criminal Code Provision Suspending Probation Upon Imprisonment of More Than One Year Does Not Violate Fundamental Rights

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision in the Criminal Act requiring the immediate execution of a suspended sentence if a crime is committed during the suspension period and a prison sentence or heavier punishment is imposed does not violate the Constitution.

On the 3rd, the Constitutional Court announced that it made a unanimous decision by all justices to uphold the constitutionality of Article 63 of the Criminal Act in a constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A, whose suspended sentence was revoked after committing a crime during the suspension period, arguing that it violated the principle of double jeopardy.

The court explained, "The sentence executed due to the revocation of the suspension is merely the sentence that was already pronounced and is not an additional punishment."

Furthermore, since a suspended sentence is premised on the possibility that the suspended sentence can be executed at any time if grounds for revocation arise, the court judged that executing the sentence later does not violate the principle of prohibition of double punishment.

Mr. A was sentenced to three years in prison with a five-year suspension in September 2016 for violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, and the sentence was finalized by the Supreme Court.

Later, in June 2018, during the suspension period, Mr. A was sentenced to six months in prison for joint assault, resulting in serving the previously suspended three-year sentence as well.

This was the result under Article 63 of the Criminal Act, which mandates that if a prison sentence or heavier punishment is imposed for a crime committed during the suspension period, the suspended sentence must be executed immediately.

Mr. A filed a constitutional complaint arguing that although the judgment for the past violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics was already finalized, he was punished again for the past crime due to the unrelated joint assault charge, which violates the principle of prohibition of double punishment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.