The Constitutional Court will decide whether a lower court ruling that revoked a suspended sentence over a crime committed before the suspension was constitutional.
The court on Monday referred to its full bench a case filed by a person identified as A, seeking to cancel a court ruling. A, who was recently sentenced to a fine on charges including issuing false tax invoices, had the case reviewed by a panel of three constitutional justices. A is represented by the law firm Kyungin.
In July 2024, A received a suspended sentence of a 700 million won fine at the Incheon District Court for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and other charges.
A suspended imposition of sentence defers the imposition of a penalty for relatively minor crimes and exempts the offender from punishment if a set period (two years) passes. However, under Article 61 of the Criminal Act, which governs the invalidation of a suspended sentence, the suspended penalty is imposed if a ruling carrying a punishment of suspension of qualifications or heavier becomes final during the suspension period.
In November last year, while A was still within the suspension period, A received a final sentence of one year in prison for a separate breach of duty. In December that year, the Incheon District Court accepted a prosecutor's request to void the suspended sentence and decided to impose a 700 million won fine on A. A appealed, but the Incheon branch of the Seoul High Court, followed by the Supreme Court, upheld the same judgment.
A then filed a constitutional petition, arguing that the provision on the invalidation of suspended sentences and the court decision applying it were unconstitutional. A's side argued that "a person given a suspended imposition of sentence is treated more unfavorably than a person given a suspended execution of sentence, which violates the principle of equality." They contended that a suspended imposition of sentence is unfair because it loses its effect merely when a ruling becomes "final," regardless of when the crime was committed.
Article 63 of the Criminal Act provides that a suspended execution of sentence loses its effect if the person who received it is given a final prison term of imprisonment or heavier for "a crime committed intentionally during the suspension period."
The Constitutional Court is already reviewing three petitions challenging the constitutionality of the provision.
One additional judicial petition also passed preliminary review, seeking to cancel a court decision that dismissed an appeal on the grounds that the appellate brief was submitted late. Three people including one identified as B filed a claim for damages in May 2024 over school violence, but it was rejected at the first trial on July 17 the following year. They appealed on July 31 and submitted their appellate brief on October 12, but the appeal was dismissed on October 20 on the grounds that they had not submitted the brief within the submission period (40 days from the notice of receipt of the litigation records).
Article 402-3, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act stipulates that an appellate court must dismiss an appeal when the appellate brief is not submitted within the relevant period.
B's side sought to cancel the court ruling, arguing that "the appellate brief submission system is a newly introduced system to sort out early appeals in which there is no genuine will to contest and to promptly organize the issues of the appellate trial," and that "dismissing the appeal despite the brief having been submitted before the court's decision infringes on the right to trial and the right to equality." B is represented by the law firm Logos.
The Constitutional Court has already referred to formal review four judicial petitions related to the appellate brief submission period and three constitutional petitions challenging Article 402-3, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Meanwhile, a total of 1,324 judicial petitions were filed with the Constitutional Court from March 12 this year through the previous day.
