Supreme Court's First Ruling After 'Yoon Chang-ho Act' Clause Deemed Unconstitutional... Retrial in Second Instance

Court: "Constitutional Court's Unconstitutionality Ruling Loses Effect... Can No Longer Uphold the Verdict"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court overturned and remanded a case in which the so-called ‘Yoon Chang-ho Act provision,’ recently declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, was applied. The ruling means that the lower court’s decision can no longer be upheld as the provision itself has lost its effect due to the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutionality ruling. This is the first Supreme Court decision following the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court’s 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Noh Jeong-hee) on the 2nd overturned the original sentence of 4 years imprisonment in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Road Traffic Act (refusal to take a test) and other charges, and sent the case back to the second trial.

Mr. A was prosecuted for refusing a police officer’s request for a breathalyzer test after causing an accident while driving under the influence in Seogwipo City, Jeju, in January last year. At the time, Mr. A, who was driving under the influence, hit two pedestrians crossing a crosswalk. One person (aged 60 at the time) died, and another (aged 50 at the time) was injured in the accident.

Mr. A was previously subject to a summary order with a fine of 2 million won in 2007 for drunk driving and was indicted under the Yoon Chang-ho Act for the refusal to take the test.

The first and second trials found all charges against Mr. A guilty and applied the Yoon Chang-ho Act provision, which imposes aggravated punishment if a person who has driven under the influence refuses the test, sentencing him to 4 years imprisonment.

However, on the 26th of last month, the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional by a 7 to 2 decision in a constitutional complaint case concerning Article 148-2, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act. This provision stipulates aggravated punishment for those who commit drunk driving and refusal to take the test again or for those who refuse the test after drunk driving. Following a similar ruling in November last year, the Constitutional Court’s recent decision invalidated not only the aggravated punishment for habitual drunk driving but also the provision for aggravated punishment related to refusal to take the test.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court judged that since the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutionality ruling was made, the provision punishing Mr. A has lost its effect. This means that if a criminal law or legal provision concerning punishment loses its effect retroactively due to an unconstitutionality ruling, the defendant charged under that provision is no longer considered guilty.

Therefore, the part of the indictment concerning violation of the Road Traffic Act (refusal to take a breathalyzer test) in Mr. A’s case must be overturned. However, since the second trial regarded this part and the remaining guilty parts as concurrent offenses and imposed a single sentence, the Supreme Court overturned the entire original judgment.

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