Constitutional Court Rules Pre-Amendment Military Court Act's Cost Compensation Claim Limitation Period 'Unconstitutional'

Before the law was amended in 2020, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision in the Military Court Act stipulating the period to exercise the right to claim cost compensation as "within 6 months from the date the acquittal judgment is finalized" is unconstitutional.

On the 31st, the Constitutional Court decided the constitutional complaint case filed by Mr. A, who argued that Article 227-12, Paragraph 2 of the Military Court Act before the amendment violated the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality and infringed on property rights, with a ruling of 8 (unconstitutional) to 1 (constitutional discordance).

Constitutional Court Grand Bench. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok and Constitutional Justices Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyung-bae, and Lee Mi-sun, among four justices, judged that the provision violated the principle of proportionality by infringing on the right to request a trial and property rights of those claiming cost compensation, deeming it unconstitutional.

Justices Lee Eun-ae, Lee Jong-seok, Lee Young-jin, and Jeong Jeong-mi, another group of four justices, found that while it did not violate the principle of proportionality, it was unconstitutional as it violated the principle of equality. These justices viewed that the provision under review arbitrarily treated those entitled to claim cost compensation under the Military Court Act differently from those under the Criminal Procedure Act, despite essentially no difference between them, thus violating the principle of equality.

The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that the period for claiming cost compensation follows the Criminal Compensation Act, which allows claims "within 3 years from the date the acquittal judgment is known to be finalized, and within 5 years from the date the acquittal judgment is finalized." The exclusion period provision in the Military Court Act, which the claimant challenged, was amended in June 2020 to "within 3 years from the date the acquittal judgment is known to be finalized, and within 5 years from the date the acquittal judgment is finalized."

Meanwhile, Justice Kim Hyung-doo agreed with the four justices that the provision violated the principle of equality and was unconstitutional, but he opposed the order, arguing that a simple unconstitutional ruling would significantly limit the scope of rights relief. He advocated for a constitutional discordance decision with a recommendation for legislative improvement to expand the scope of rights relief.

Mr. A, who was convicted of rape and other charges by the Army Education Command Ordinary Military Court in June 2017 but acquitted of rape in the appellate court in December 2017, filed a lawsuit claiming cost compensation of 17.6 million won for attorney fees incurred in the first and second trials after the acquittal was finalized.

Mr. A then filed a constitutional review request against Article 227-12, Paragraph 2 of the Military Court Act, which, unlike the Criminal Procedure Act, stipulates the period for claiming criminal cost compensation as within 6 months from the date the acquittal judgment is finalized. After the request was dismissed, he filed a constitutional complaint.

A Constitutional Court official stated, "Although opinions differ regarding the grounds and orders that violate the Constitution, it is significant that all justices unanimously agreed that the provision of the former Military Court Act setting the exclusion period for the right to claim cost compensation violates the Constitution."

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