"‘Trial is a mess’ Defendant who insulted the court receives heavier sentence... Supreme Court rules 'Illegal sentencing'"

First Trial Judge Increases Sentence for Contempt of Court from 1 Year to 3 Years... Second Trial Also Deems It a "Just Verdict"
Supreme Court States "Changed Sentencing Cannot Be Unlimited... Only 'Trial Mistakes or Wrong Verdicts' Are Allowed"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that increasing a defendant's sentence from one year to three years in prison after the judge read out a one-year sentence and the defendant insulted the court by saying "This trial is a mess" constitutes an illegal sentencing procedure.

This ruling clarifies the controversy over when a criminal sentence is considered finalized and whether the judgment can be modified during the sentencing process, setting a precedent that will serve as a standard for the operation of first and second trials in the future.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) overturned the second trial court's ruling that sentenced defendant A to two years in prison on charges including false accusation and forgery of private documents, and remanded the case back to the second trial court on the 13th.

Defendant A was prosecuted for false accusation and other charges. The first trial court, after deliberation, found all of A's charges guilty. The issue arose during the sentencing process of the first trial. During sentencing, the presiding judge read out the order "The defendant is sentenced to one year in prison," and while notifying about the appeal period, A caused a disturbance by saying, "This trial is a mess, what kind of trial is this," along with other abusive language.

In response, the first trial judge told A, "The sentencing is not yet complete, and until the sentencing is finally concluded, the court will consider the circumstances that have arisen here to revise the sentence," and then sentenced A to three years in prison. The sentence was increased considering the contemptuous remarks made in court.

Defendant A appealed, arguing that the sentencing procedure was illegal. Since the one-year sentence had already been finalized, the judge could not arbitrarily change it. However, the second trial court rejected A's claim.

The second trial court ruled, "Until the court session for sentencing is concluded, the sentencing is not finished, and until then, it is valid and lawful to reconsider and re-sentence by taking into account all circumstances that have arisen." Since the sentencing procedure for A had not yet ended when the first trial judge modified the sentence, the second trial court deemed the modification lawful.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. Even if the judge has read out the order, before the sentencing is finalized, the judge may correct and re-sentence the order read, but unlimited modifications are not permitted.

The Supreme Court held that once the judge has read the order and the sentencing content has been externally indicated, sentence modification is allowed only in special circumstances where it is deemed justifiable, such as ▲ mistakes in reading or explaining the order or reasons recorded in the judgment document, or ▲ discovery of errors in the judgment content.

The court stated, "In this case, there were no special circumstances justifying the modification of the sentence, such as errors in the initially read order or mistakes in reading or explaining the order and reasons recorded in the judgment document," and ruled, "We overturn the lower court's ruling, which was based on the premise that the first trial's sentence modification was lawful."

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