Gangster Tried 22 Years Ago... Supreme Court Rules "Dismissed Due to Statute of Limitations Completion"

Assault on Rival Gang Member Followed by Escape... Acquittal in First and Second Trials Held 17 Years Later
Prosecution: "Amendment to Criminal Procedure Law Extends Statute of Limitations to 25 Years"... Supreme Court: "Apply Pre-Amendment Regulations"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] A gang member who went into hiding after being indicted for assaulting a rival gang member was acquitted 22 years later on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Noh Jung-hee) announced on the 23rd that it upheld the lower court's dismissal ruling in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with violating the Act on the Punishment of Violent Crimes, etc.

Mr. A, who was a deputy leader of a violent gang in Changwon, Gyeongnam, was indicted in June of the following year on charges of conspiring to kidnap and assault a rival gang member after one of his gang members was assaulted by a member of another gang in September 1999, and using force to prevent the victim from escaping during the assault.

The court held the first trial session in May 2002, but Mr. A did not appear. According to the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, if the defendant does not appear in court and the defendant's whereabouts cannot be confirmed for more than six months, the trial can proceed in the defendant's absence. However, trials cannot proceed if the sentence involves the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or detention exceeding 10 years.

Because of this, Mr. A's first trial was held 17 years later in 2019, and the first trial court ruled for dismissal. The Criminal Procedure Act allows a trial to proceed without the defendant's presence if the statute of limitations has clearly expired after 15 years from the indictment.

However, the prosecution argued that the statute of limitations period was extended from 15 to 25 years based on the amended Criminal Procedure Act of December 2007, which considers the statute of limitations complete after a certain period post-indictment.

Nonetheless, the first and second trial courts ruled that the pre-amendment regulations should apply to Mr. A. The judgment was based on the supplementary provisions of the amended Criminal Procedure Act, which state that crimes committed before the enforcement of the amendment are subject to the previous regulations.

The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower courts' decision. The court stated, "Considering that the extension of the statute of limitations is disadvantageous to the defendant, the supplementary provisions intend to apply the previous regulations to crimes committed before the enforcement of the amended law," and ruled, "Crimes committed before the amendment are deemed to have their statute of limitations completed after 15 years."

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