Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Retrial finality and the start of a suspended sentence period
Supreme Court, Feb. 28, 2019, 2018Do13382 (judgment)
Case name: 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등상해)(인정된죄명:특수상해)·폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등재물손괴등)(인정된죄명:특수재물손괴)·도로교통법위반(음주운전)·도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a retrial judgment becomes final and the original judgment loses its effect, does that loss alone impair the defendant's legal position so as to breach the prohibition on reformatio in peius or the principle of retrial for the defendant's benefit, and from what date does a suspended sentence imposed on retrial begin to run?
Holding
No, and a suspended sentence imposed on retrial begins to run from the date that retrial judgment becomes final. The retrial court retries the case itself from the start as wholly new proceedings, so when its judgment becomes final the original judgment and its ancillary dispositions lose their legal effect as a matter of course. Since the Criminal Act gives no express rule on when a suspended sentence period starts, the purpose of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Act, that a judgment is executed after it becomes final unless this Act provides otherwise, and the nature of the suspended sentence system require that period to start on the date the judgment imposing it becomes final; even if the lapse of the earlier suspended sentence is undone, that is an inevitable result of retrial's nature, and the principle against reformatio in peius is not breached so long as the sentence set on retrial is no heavier than the one in the retrial-target judgment.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러므로 재심판결이 확정됨에 따라 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸하는 것은 재심의 본질상 당연한 것으로서, 원판결의 효력 상실 그 자체로 인하여 피고인이 어떠한 불이익을 입는다 하더라도 이를 두고 재심에서 보호되어야 할 피고인의 법적 지위를 해치는 것이라고 볼 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, upon the finality of the retrial judgment, the legal effect of the original judgment or its ancillary dispositions is lost and the effect of the pre-existing fact that a sentence had been pronounced is extinguished, which is a matter of course in light of the nature of retrial, and even if the defendant suffers any disadvantage from the loss of effect of the original judgment itself, this cannot be regarded as harming the defendant's legal status that should be protected in the retrial.
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
집행유예를 함에 있어 그 집행유예 기간의 시기는 집행유예를 선고한 판결 확정일로 하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
In imposing a suspended sentence, the timing of the period of suspension must be the date on which the judgment pronouncing the suspended sentence becomes final
Factors
- 재심심판절차는 원판결의 당부를 심사하는 종전 소송절차의 후속 절차가 아니라 사건 자체를 처음부터 다시 심판하는 완전히 새로운 소송절차로서
- 확정된 판결에 중대한 하자가 있는 경우 구체적 정의를 실현하기 위하여 그 판결의 확정력으로 유지되는 법적 안정성을 후퇴시키고
- 형사소송법 제459조가 “재판은 이 법률에 특별한 규정이 없으면 확정한 후에 집행한다.”라고 규정한 취지나 집행유예 제도의 본질 등에 비추어 보면
- 재심판결에서 정한 형이 재심대상판결의 형보다 중하지 않은 이상
Unofficial English translation
• Retrial proceedings are not subsequent proceedings of the previous litigation proceedings that examine the propriety of the original judgment, but entirely new litigation proceedings that adjudicate the case itself anew from the beginning, and
• where a final judgment has a serious defect, it sets back the legal stability maintained by the res judicata of that judgment in order to realize concrete justice, and
• in light of the purport of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that "A judgment shall be executed after it becomes final, unless this Act provides otherwise," and the essence of the suspension of sentence system, and
• provided that the sentence determined in the retrial judgment is not more severe than the sentence in the judgment subject to retrial
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 2. 28. 선고 2015도15782 판결(공2018상, 657)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do15782 decided February 28, 2018 (Gong 2018 Sang, 657)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 2. 28. 선고 2015도15782 판결(공2018상, 657) / [2] 대법원 2002. 2. 26. 선고 2000도4637 판결(공2002상, 840)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the retrial judgment becomes final and the original judgment's ancillary dispositions lose their effect, what happens to a sum already collected under such an ancillary disposition?
A later decision on whether, and how, an already executed ancillary disposition is unwound after a retrial judgment becomes final would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 62 of the Criminal Act adding an express rule on when a suspended-sentence period begins.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When the retrial judgment becomes final and the original judgment's ancillary dispositions lose their effect, what happens to a sum already collected under such an ancillary disposition?” vs Independent “How should imprisonment already served under the original judgment be accounted for after the retrial judgment becomes final?”
The primary reading asks what happens to sums already collected under an ancillary disposition. The independent reading asks how imprisonment already served under the original judgment should be credited. These concern different consequences.
그러므로 재심판결이 확정됨에 따라 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸하는 것은 재심의 본질상 당연한 것으로서, 원판결의 효력 상실 그 자체로 인하여 피고인이 어떠한 불이익을 입는다 하더라도 이를 두고 재심에서 보호되어야 할 피고인의 법적 지위를 해치는 것이라고 볼 것은 아니다.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 Daegu District Court, in its judgment of 9 August 2018 (2017No4027), held that where a defendant, during the suspended-sentence period set in the retrial-target judgment, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment under Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for retaliatory intimidation and that sentence became final, so that the suspended sentence lapsed and the deferred sentence was executed, a suspended sentence granted afresh on retrial must run from the date the retrial judgment becomes final rather than the date the retrial-target judgment became final. It further held that even if the lapse of the earlier suspended sentence disappears as an effect, that is an inevitable consequence of retrial's nature.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law it had set out, it held that treating the date the retrial judgment becomes final as the start of the suspended-sentence period was right and that the court below had not misapplied the principle against reformatio in peius on retrial. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the retrial judgment has not yet become final, so the original judgment has not yet lost its effect.
- A case in which the sentence set on retrial is heavier than the sentence in the retrial-target judgment, since the Court's conclusion is limited to cases where the new sentence is no heavier.
- A case in which a statute expressly provides when a suspended-sentence period begins, since the Court found no express rule in the Criminal Act.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the retrial-target judgment's suspended sentence had in fact lapsed and the deferred sentence been executed, as in this case where a six-month sentence for retaliatory intimidation became final during that period. Then compare the sentence set on retrial with the retrial-target sentence, because the reasoning holds only while the new sentence is no heavier. Finally check that the suspended sentence now in question was granted on retrial and that the retrial judgment is final, since the timing rule keys off that finalisation.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 재심심판절차의 성격 및 재심판결이 확정되면 원판결은 당연히 효력을 잃는지 여부(적극) / 재심판결 확정의 효력 범위 및 원판결의 효력 상실 자체로 인하여 피고인이 입는 불이익이 재심에서 보호되어야 할 피고인의 법적 지위를 해치는 것인지 여부(소극) [2] 집행유예를 할 때 집행유예 기간의 시기(=집행유예를 선고한 판결 확정일) [3] 피고인이 재심대상판결에서 정한 집행유예의 기간 중 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(보복협박등)죄로 징역 6개월을 선고받아 그 판결이 확정됨으로써 위 집행유예가 실효되고 피고인에 대하여 유예된 형이 집행되었는데, 재심판결인 원심판결에서 새로이 형을 정하고 원심판결 확정일을 기산일로 하는 집행유예를 다시 선고한 사안에서, 재심판결에서 정한 형이 재심대상판결의 형보다 중하지 않은 이상 불이익변경금지원칙이나 이익재심원칙에 반하지 않는다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The nature of retrial proceedings and whether the original judgment automatically loses its effect upon the finality of the retrial judgment (affirmative) / The scope of the effect of the finality of the retrial judgment and whether any disadvantage suffered by the defendant due to the loss of effect of the original judgment itself harms the defendant's legal status that should be protected in the retrial (negative) [2] The timing of the period of suspension when a suspended sentence is imposed (= the date on which the judgment pronouncing the suspended sentence becomes final) [3] A case where, in a situation in which the defendant, during the period of suspension determined in the judgment subject to retrial, was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (retaliatory intimidation, etc.), that judgment became final, whereby the aforesaid suspension of sentence was revoked and the sentence suspended as to the defendant was executed, and in which the judgment of the court below, being the retrial judgment, newly determined a sentence and again pronounced a suspended sentence taking as its commencement date the date on which the judgment of the court below became final, the Supreme Court held that the judgment of the court below was proper insofar as it regarded the judgment of the court below as not contrary to the principle prohibiting disadvantageous change or the principle of favorable retrial, provided that the sentence determined in the retrial judgment is not more severe than the sentence in the judgment subject to retrial
Summary of the holding
[1] 재심심판절차는 원판결의 당부를 심사하는 종전 소송절차의 후속 절차가 아니라 사건 자체를 처음부터 다시 심판하는 완전히 새로운 소송절차로서 재심판결이 확정되면 원판결은 당연히 효력을 잃는다. 이는 확정된 판결에 중대한 하자가 있는 경우 구체적 정의를 실현하기 위하여 그 판결의 확정력으로 유지되는 법적 안정성을 후퇴시키고 사건 자체를 다시 심판하는 재심의 본질에서 비롯된 것이다. 그러므로 재심판결이 확정됨에 따라 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸하는 것은 재심의 본질상 당연한 것으로서, 원판결의 효력 상실 그 자체로 인하여 피고인이 어떠한 불이익을 입는다 하더라도 이를 두고 재심에서 보호되어야 할 피고인의 법적 지위를 해치는 것이라고 볼 것은 아니다. [2] 우리 형법이 집행유예 기간의 시기에 관하여 명문의 규정을 두고 있지는 않지만, 형사소송법 제459조가 “재판은 이 법률에 특별한 규정이 없으면 확정한 후에 집행한다.”라고 규정한 취지나 집행유예 제도의 본질 등에 비추어 보면 집행유예를 함에 있어 그 집행유예 기간의 시기는 집행유예를 선고한 판결 확정일로 하여야 한다. [3] 피고인이 재심대상판결에서 정한 집행유예의 기간 중 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(보복협박등)죄로 징역 6개월을 선고받아 그 판결이 확정됨으로써 위 집행유예가 실효되고 피고인에 대하여 유예된 형이 집행되었는데, 재심판결인 원심판결에서 새로이 형을 정하고 원심판결 확정일을 기산일로 하는 집행유예를 다시 선고한 사안에서, 재심판결에서 피고인에게 또다시 집행유예를 선고할 경우 그 집행유예 기간의 시기는 재심대상판결의 확정일이 아니라 재심판결의 확정일로 보아야 하고, 그로 인하여 재심대상판결이 선고한 집행유예의 실효 효과까지 없어지더라도, 재심판결이 확정되면 재심대상판결은 효력을 잃게 되는 재심의 본질상 당연한 결과이므로, 재심판결에서 정한 형이 재심대상판결의 형보다 중하지 않은 이상 불이익변경금지원칙이나 이익재심원칙에 반하지 않는다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제420조, 제438조, 제439조 [2] 형법 제62조, 형사소송법 제459조 [3] 형법 제62조 제1항, 제63조, 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의9 제2항, 형사소송법 제420조, 제438조, 제439조, 제459조
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