Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
The petty-fine payment period before summary trial and indictment
Supreme Court, Apr. 29, 2020, 2017Do13409 (judgment)
Case name: 야간건조물침입절도·병역법위반·사기·점유이탈물횡령·절도[범칙금 납부기간 도과 전 공소제기한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a police chief has made a notification of a petty offence under the Minor Offences Punishment Act and the payment period set in that notification has not yet expired, is the police chief in principle barred from applying for a summary trial and the prosecutor barred from indicting for the same petty offence?
Holding
Yes, in principle neither may do so. The petty-fine scheme of the Minor Offences Punishment Act is a special dispensation from punishment: where a person pays the fine following the police chief's notification in advance of the criminal process, that person is not prosecuted, and the scheme differs from court proceedings in its institutional purpose and legal character. To protect that procedural position of the offender, until the payment period set in the notification has run, the police chief may not apply for a summary trial in principle and the prosecutor may not indict for the same petty offence.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 경찰서장이 범칙행위에 대하여 통고처분을 한 이상, 범칙자의 위와 같은 절차적 지위를 보장하기 위하여 통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간까지는 원칙적으로 경찰서장은 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, once the chief of a police station has rendered a disposition of notification for a violation, in order to guarantee the offender such procedural status, in principle until the period for payment of the fine set in the disposition of notification has elapsed, the chief of a police station may not request a summary judgment, and the prosecutor cannot institute a public prosecution for the same violation.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간까지는 원칙적으로 경찰서장은 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In principle, until the period for payment of the fine set in the disposition of notification has elapsed, the chief of a police station may not request a summary judgment, and the prosecutor cannot institute a public prosecution for the same violation.
Factors
- 경범죄 처벌법상 범칙금제도는 범칙행위에 대하여 형사절차에 앞서 경찰서장의 통고처분에 따라 범칙금을 납부할 경우 이를 납부하는 사람에 대하여는 기소를 하지 않는 처벌의 특례를 마련해 둔 것으로
- 법원의 재판절차와는 제도적 취지와 법적 성질에서 차이가 있다
- 기소독점주의의 예외를 인정하여 경찰서장의 즉결심판 청구를 통하여 공판절차를 거치지 않고 사건을 간이하고 신속·적정하게 처리함으로써 소송경제를 도모하되
- 즉결심판 선고 전까지 범칙금을 납부하면 형사처벌을 면할 수 있도록 함으로써 범칙자에 대하여 형사소추와 형사처벌을 면제받을 기회를 부여하고 있다
- 통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간까지는 원칙적으로 경찰서장은 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다고 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• The fine system under the Act on Punishment of Minor Offenses establishes a special rule on punishment under which, if a person pays a fine in accordance with a disposition of notification by the chief of a police station before criminal proceedings are undertaken with respect to a violation, no prosecution is instituted against the person who pays it,
• it differs from the court's trial procedure in its institutional purpose and legal nature
• it recognizes an exception to the principle of exclusive prosecution by prosecutors and promotes economy of litigation by handling cases in a simple, swift and appropriate manner without undergoing trial proceedings, through a request for summary judgment by the chief of a police station,
• and by allowing a person to avoid criminal punishment if the fine is paid before the pronouncement of a summary judgment, it affords the offender an opportunity to be exempted from criminal prosecution and criminal punishment
• in principle until the period for payment of the fine set in the disposition of notification has elapsed, the chief of a police station may not request a summary judgment, and the prosecutor cannot institute a public prosecution for the same violation
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간까지는 원칙적으로 경찰서장은 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In principle, until the period for payment of the fine set in the disposition of notification has elapsed, the chief of a police station may not request a summary judgment, and the prosecutor cannot institute a public prosecution for the same violation.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2012. 9. 13. 선고 2012도6612 판결(공2012하, 1712)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the notification and the indictment cover offences that only partly overlap, does the same bar apply to the overlapping part before the payment period expires?
An amendment to Articles 7 to 9 of the Minor Offences Punishment Act that changes the payment periods or the effect of the notification would require this entry to be read again. So would a later Supreme Court decision addressing an indictment for an offence only partly covered by a notification.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
The primary treats the holding as setting a new standard for the relation between the petty-fine scheme and criminal procedure, while the independent reading treats it as following existing precedent.
대법원 2012. 9. 13. 선고 2012도6612 판결(공2012하, 1712)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the notification and the indictment cover offences that only partly overlap, does the same bar apply to the overlapping part before the payment period expires?” vs Independent “What exceptional circumstances would permit a summary trial request or prosecution before the payment period expires?”
The primary asks whether the same bar applies to the overlapping part where the notification and the indictment only partly overlap. The independent reading asks what exceptional circumstances would allow a summary trial or prosecution before the period expires. Both concern exceptions to the bar but point to different unresolved points.
따라서 경찰서장이 범칙행위에 대하여 통고처분을 한 이상, 범칙자의 위와 같은 절차적 지위를 보장하기 위하여 통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간까지는 원칙적으로 경찰서장은 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 10 August 2017 (2017No1462), dealt with the fraud charge in first-instance case 2017GoDan387, that food was obtained and taken without an intention or ability to pay for it. It held that the police chief had made a notification for the same petty offence as that charge and that the prosecutor had indicted before the payment period for the fine had expired, so the indictment was one whose procedure violated the statutory provisions and was void, and the charge had to be dismissed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below was right. Reading its reasons against the law set out above, it found no error of misunderstanding the law on notification and summary trial under the Minor Offences Punishment Act, and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal by unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the payment period set in the notification has already expired, since the bar stated is for the period until it runs.
- An indictment for a petty offence other than the one covered by the notification, since the bar is stated for the same petty offence.
- A case in which no notification was made at all, since the procedural position the decision protects arises from the notification the police chief has made.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the notification against the indictment date, and count the 10-day period from receipt of the notification document and the further 20-day period, during which the notified fine plus 20/100 is payable, since the payment window is built from both. Then compare the offence described in the notification with the offence charged, because the rule reaches only the same petty offence. Note that the decision cites Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6612 only in support of the scheme's differing institutional purpose and legal character, not for the bar itself, and that even after an application for summary trial, payment of the notified fine with 50/100 added and production of the certificate before judgment requires the police chief to withdraw that application.
From the official text
Points at issue
경범죄 처벌법상 범칙금제도의 의의 / 경찰서장이 범칙행위에 대하여 통고처분을 하였는데 통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간이 경과하지 아니한 경우, 원칙적으로 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The significance of the fine system under the Act on Punishment of Minor Offenses / Where the chief of a police station has rendered a disposition of notification for a violation, and the period for payment of the fine set in the disposition of notification has not yet elapsed, whether in principle a summary judgment cannot be requested and whether the prosecutor cannot institute a public prosecution for the same violation (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
경범죄 처벌법은 제3장에서 ‘경범죄 처벌의 특례’로서 범칙행위에 대한 통고처분(제7조), 범칙금의 납부(제8조, 제8조의2)와 통고처분 불이행자 등의 처리(제9조)를 정하고 있다. 경찰서장으로부터 범칙금 통고처분을 받은 사람은 통고처분서를 받은 날부터 10일 이내에 범칙금을 납부하여야 하고, 위 기간에 범칙금을 납부하지 않은 사람은 위 기간의 마지막 날의 다음 날부터 20일 이내에 통고받은 범칙금에 20/100을 더한 금액을 납부하여야 한다(제8조 제1항, 제2항). 경범죄 처벌법 제8조 제2항에 따른 납부기간에 범칙금을 납부하지 않은 사람에 대하여 경찰서장은 지체 없이 즉결심판을 청구하여야 하고(제9조 제1항 제2호), 즉결심판이 청구되더라도 그 선고 전까지 피고인이 통고받은 범칙금에 50/100을 더한 금액을 납부하고 그 증명서류를 제출하였을 경우에는 경찰서장은 즉결심판 청구를 취소하여야 한다(제9조 제2항). 이와 같이 통고받은 범칙금을 납부한 사람은 그 범칙행위에 대하여 다시 처벌받지 않는다(제8조 제3항, 제9조 제3항). 위와 같은 규정 내용과 통고처분의 입법 취지를 고려하면, 경범죄 처벌법상 범칙금제도는 범칙행위에 대하여 형사절차에 앞서 경찰서장의 통고처분에 따라 범칙금을 납부할 경우 이를 납부하는 사람에 대하여는 기소를 하지 않는 처벌의 특례를 마련해 둔 것으로 법원의 재판절차와는 제도적 취지와 법적 성질에서 차이가 있다. 또한 범칙자가 통고처분을 불이행하였더라도 기소독점주의의 예외를 인정하여 경찰서장의 즉결심판 청구를 통하여 공판절차를 거치지 않고 사건을 간이하고 신속·적정하게 처리함으로써 소송경제를 도모하되, 즉결심판 선고 전까지 범칙금을 납부하면 형사처벌을 면할 수 있도록 함으로써 범칙자에 대하여 형사소추와 형사처벌을 면제받을 기회를 부여하고 있다. 따라서 경찰서장이 범칙행위에 대하여 통고처분을 한 이상, 범칙자의 위와 같은 절차적 지위를 보장하기 위하여 통고처분에서 정한 범칙금 납부기간까지는 원칙적으로 경찰서장은 즉결심판을 청구할 수 없고, 검사도 동일한 범칙행위에 대하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
경범죄 처벌법 제7조, 제8조, 제8조의2, 제9조 제1항 제2호, 제2항, 제3항, 형사소송법 제327조 제2호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger