Constitutional Court Rules 'Unconstitutional' the Criminal Compensation Act Provision Denying Compensation Even if Sentence is Reduced in Retrial

Constitutional Court Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision of the Criminal Compensation Act, which does not separately regulate compensation for excessive detention periods when the sentence is reduced due to a change in the indictment by the prosecution in a retrial requested after an unconstitutional ruling, is unconstitutional.

On the afternoon of the 24th, the Constitutional Court made a 'constitutional discordance' decision in a case requesting a constitutional review of Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Compensation Act. Constitutional discordance means that although the relevant law violates the constitution, it temporarily recognizes its effect to allow for legislative amendment when immediate suspension of effect could cause confusion.

Previously, the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional the content of Article 5-4, Paragraph 1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, which stipulated habitual theft. Mr. A, who had completed serving a two-year prison sentence confirmed under this provision for habitual theft charges, requested a retrial following the Constitutional Court's ruling. In the retrial, the prosecution changed the indictment to 'theft under the Criminal Act' instead of habitual theft, and Mr. A's sentence was reduced to one year and six months.

Mr. A filed a criminal compensation claim regarding the additional four months he was detained under the previous sentence. The problem is that Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Compensation Act does not include provisions allowing claims for compensation when the sentence is reduced due to a change in the indictment during a retrial. The first trial court dismissed Mr. A's claim, stating it was not subject to compensation, but the Seoul High Court, which handled the second trial, requested a constitutional review of the relevant provision of the Criminal Compensation Act from the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court explained the reason for its constitutional discordance decision, stating, "If detention exceeding the sentence imposed in the retrial has already occurred, this constitutes excessive detention due to unconstitutional law enforcement," and "Considering that serious harm to personal liberty has occurred, denying compensation contradicts the retroactive effect of the unconstitutional ruling and the retrial request rights stipulated in the Constitutional Court Act." However, Justices Lee Seonae, Lee Eun-ae, and Lee Jongseok dissented, arguing that this does not apply to cases of detaining innocent persons.

A Constitutional Court official stated, "Depending on the content of future legislative improvements, even if there is no formal or apparent acquittal trial, there may be a possibility to open a path for compensation claims when harm to personal liberty occurs due to unavoidable risks inherent in the criminal justice process."

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