Double Prosecution for the Same Crime... Supreme Court "Trial Overturned, Dismissal Pronounced"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal for the prosecution to indict a defendant twice on the same charge and for the court to impose fines twice on the defendant.

On the 13th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusuk) announced that it overturned the original ruling that sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 4 million won in an extraordinary appeal trial for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Mr. A was indicted on charges of sending his account and check card under his name to an unidentified person via courier after receiving a promise to lend money at a monthly interest rate of 5% if he lent his check card in November 2017. The prosecution indicted Mr. A on charges of lending access media for electronic financial transactions with the promise of receiving compensation.

The first trial found that Mr. A violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which prohibits the buying and selling of bankbooks and cash cards, and sentenced him to a fine of 4 million won. However, it was later confirmed that Mr. A had already been indicted on the same charges and had a fine confirmed by the same court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, which overturned the original ruling. An extraordinary appeal is a specific procedure requested by the Prosecutor General when it is found that a judgment has violated the law after the judgment has been finalized.

The Supreme Court stated, "Since the defendant was already indicted on the same charges with essentially the same facts and was sentenced to a fine, which became final due to the expiration of the appeal period, the court should have acquitted the defendant pursuant to Article 326, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The original judgment sentencing the defendant to a fine while overlooking this fact violated the law and was disadvantageous to the defendant. Therefore, the claim for extraordinary appeal pointing out this is justified," the court ruled.

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