Supreme Court: "If a summary order is issued for a minor offense, prosecution cannot proceed even if the order is canceled"

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if the police cancel the existing notification disposition applied under the Minor Offenses Act and refer the case to the prosecution on charges of habitual fraud, the prosecutor cannot indict the case. A notification disposition is an administrative measure where an administrative agency imposes a fine instead of criminal proceedings, and if paid within a certain period, the offender is exempt from punishment.

On the 15th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Gitaek) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling sentencing Mr. A to one year in prison in his appeal trial on charges including habitual fraud, and remanded the case to the Busan District Court.

The court stated, "Although the police prepared an investigation report canceling Mr. A's notification disposition, that alone is insufficient to consider a valid cancellation disposition has been made," and "Even if a cancellation disposition was made, the notification disposition cannot be arbitrarily canceled within the payment period and a prosecution initiated for the same violation."

Mr. A was prosecuted for allegedly verbally abusing employees and customers at Restaurant B in Busan at 5:30 a.m. on February 23 last year without paying for drinks. Additionally, about six hours later, he was also indicted for not paying or obstructing business at Restaurant C.

At that time, the police issued a notification disposition against him under the Minor Offenses Act at Restaurant B, but later, while arresting him at Restaurant C as a flagrant offender and investigating, they discovered his prior notification disposition and similar offenses. Consequently, the police canceled the notification disposition and formally charged him with habitual fraud, and the prosecutor applied the habitual fraud charge to all criminal facts and indicted him.

The first trial found all charges guilty and sentenced him to one year in prison. The court stated, "Mr. A has a history of multiple punishments for similar crimes and committed the same offense just days after completing his sentence." The second trial also upheld this judgment and dismissed Mr. A's appeal claiming the sentence was too harsh.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out, "The indictment procedure violated legal provisions and is invalid," and "The lower court erred in its understanding of the law regarding notification dispositions, which affected the judgment."

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