Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 94재도9

Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, Forgery of Official Documents, Uttering of Forged Official Documents, and Violation of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법위반)특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반·공문서위조·공문서위조행사·근로기준법위반

Decided1995. 03. 29. Court대법원Petition for retrial dismissed (petitioner, previously convicted, lost)
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

This case addressed whether the grounds for retrial (재심사유) under the Civil Procedure Act (민사소송법) could be applied by analogy to a request for retrial in a criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal retrial (형사재심) is only permitted on the specific grounds enumerated in Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act (형사소송법), and dismissed the petitioner's request for retrial. Although the underlying conviction included a violation of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법위반), the central legal issue in this decision concerned the interpretation of retrial procedures under criminal law.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA person who had received a final guilty conviction, including for violation of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법위반), sought a criminal retrial by citing grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court dismissed the retrial petition, holding that criminal retrial is available only on the grounds specifically listed in Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that civil retrial grounds cannot be applied by analogy.
  • LessonEven in cases involving criminal punishment for violations of the Labor Standards Act, a retrial petition must be based strictly on the statutory grounds set out in the Criminal Procedure Act, not on civil law grounds.
Issues
  • Whether grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act can be applied by analogy in criminal proceedings
  • Requirements for filing a retrial petition against a final appellate (상고심) dismissal judgment
Key reasoning

A criminal retrial exists to remedy a defendant who has suffered a miscarriage of justice due to a factual error in a final guilty verdict, and its scope is strictly limited to the grounds listed in Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the purpose and nature of civil retrial grounds under the Civil Procedure Act differ fundamentally from those of criminal retrial, such civil grounds cannot be applied by analogy in criminal proceedings. Therefore, a petitioner cannot rely on civil retrial grounds to seek reopening of a final criminal conviction.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

In criminal proceedings, retrial is a system designed to correct errors in fact-finding in a final and conclusive guilty judgment, thereby providing relief to the defendant who is disadvantaged thereby, and the grounds on which such retrial may be sought are limited to those enumerated in the respective subparagraphs of Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act (刑事訴訟法). Moreover, an application for retrial against a final and conclusive judgment dismissing an appeal to the court of final appeal is permitted only where the final and conclusive judgment itself falls under the grounds set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2, or 7 of the same Article; therefore, the grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act (民事訴訟法), which differs in purpose and nature from this system, cannot be applied by analogy thereto.

Full text (English, AI translation) 2,277 chars

[Defendant] Petitioner A
[Defense Counsel] Attorney Choi Won-ik
[Judgment Subject to Retrial] Supreme Court Decision 93Do2557, decided November 23, 1993

[Order]

The petition for retrial is dismissed.

[Reasoning]

According to the record, this petition for retrial is directed against this Court's Decision 93Do2557, decided November 23, 1993, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal, and it is clear that the ground for the petition for retrial is that the aforementioned decision dismissing the appeal, in changing the previous view on the prohibition against unfavorable modification (the principle prohibiting a heavier sentence than that imposed by the lower court) without going through the en banc panel, constitutes a case in which the court rendering the judgment was not constituted in accordance with the law, and that this should therefore be treated as a ground for retrial by applying, mutatis mutandis, Article 422(1)(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (민사소송법).

However, a retrial in criminal proceedings is a system designed to correct errors of factual misapprehension in a final and conclusive guilty judgment and thereby relieve the defendant who is thereby disadvantaged, and the grounds on which such a retrial may be sought are limited to those set forth in each subparagraph of Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act (형사소송법). Moreover, a petition for retrial against a final and conclusive judgment dismissing an appeal is permitted only where the final and conclusive judgment itself contains grounds falling under subparagraphs 1, 2, or 7 of the same Article (Article 421(1) of the same Act), and the grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act, which differ in purpose and nature from this system, cannot be applied mutatis mutandis here.

Therefore, since it is clear that this petition for retrial is not based on the existence of grounds set forth in Article 421(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it constitutes a case in violation of the manner prescribed by law, and accordingly, in accordance with Article 433 of the same Act, the opinions of the participating judges being unanimous, it is decided to dismiss the petition, as stated in the Order.

Justice Kim Hyeong-seon (Presiding Justice), Park Man-ho (Justice in Charge), Lee Yong-hoon

【판결요지】

형사소송에 있어서의 재심은 유죄의 확정판결에 대한 사실오인의 과오를 시정하여 그에 의하여 불이익을 받는 피고인을 구제하려는 제도로서 이를 청구할 수 있는 사유는 형사소송법 제420조 각호에 규정된 것에 한하고, 더욱이 상고를 기각한 확정판결에 대한 재심청구는 그 확정판결 자체에 같은 조 제1호, 제2호, 제7호 소정의 각 사유가 있는 경우에 한하여 허용되므로, 그 제도의 목적과 성질을 달리 하는 민사소송법상의 재심사유를 여기에 준용할 수 없다.

【참조조문】

형사소송법 제420조, 제421조

【참조판례】

대법원 1984. 1. 20. 자 83소3 결정, 1986. 5. 14. 자 86소1 결정, 1987. 5. 27. 자 87재도4 결정, 1990. 12. 6. 자 90재도1 결정

【주문】·【이유】 전문 768자 · 펼쳐 보기

【피 고 인】 청구인 A

【변 호 인】 변호사 최원익

【재심대상판결】 대법원 1993. 11. 23. 선고 93도2557 판결

【주 문】

재심청구를 기각한다.

【이 유】 기록에 의하면, 이 사건 재심청구는 청구인의 상고를 기각한 당원 1993.11.23. 선고 93도2557 판결에 대한 것이고, 그 재심청구의 이유는 위 상고기각판결이 전원합의체에 의하지 아니한 채 불이익변경금지에 관한 종래의 견해를 변경함으로써 법률에 의하여 판결법원을 구성하지 아니한 때에 해당하므로 민사소송법 제422조 제1항 제1호를 준용하여 이를 재심사유로 삼아야 한다는 취지임이 명백하다.

그러나 형사소송에 있어서의 재심은 유죄의 확정판결에 대한 사실오인의 과오를 시정하여 그에 의하여 불이익을 받는 피고인을 구제하려는 제도로서 이를 청구할 수 있는 사유는 형사소송법 제420조 각호에 규정된 것에 한하고, 더욱이 상고를 기각한 확정판결에 대한 재심청구는 그 확정판결 자체에 같은 조 제1, 2, 7호 소정의 각 사유가 있는 경우에 한하여 허용되며(같은 법 제421조 제1항), 그 제도의 목적과 성질을 달리 하는 민사소송법상의 재심사유를 여기에 준용할 수는 없는 것이다.

그러므로 형사소송법 제421조 제1항 소정의 사유가 있음을 이유로 하는 것이 아님이 명백한 이 사건 재심청구는 법률상의 방식에 위반된 경우에 해당한다 할 것이므로 같은 법 제433조에 따라 이를 기각하기로 관여 법관의 의견이 일치되어 주문과 같이 결정한다.

대법관 김형선(재판장) 박만호(주심) 이용훈

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2013다53212,53229 · 대법원 2016-01-14
용역비·손해배상(기)
#2
73다273 · 대법원 1974-02-12
이사직무집행정지등가처분이의
#3
84가합3300 · 서울민사지법 1984-10-17
징계면직처분요구무효확인청구사건
#4
2011재누83 · 서울고등법원 0001-01-01
산업재해보상
#5
2025다213795 · 대법원 2026-02-26
소유권이전등기

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)