Open Decision Ledger · Military criminal & justice law
Overseas operational bases as military bases under the Military Criminal Act
Supreme Court, June 29, 2023, 2022Do2070 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 폭행
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a soldier and others assault a soldier and others at a base used by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces to carry out military operations, is the application of Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act excluded under Article 60-6(i) of the Military Criminal Act, whatever the place lies inside Korean territory or is a foreign military base?
Holding
Yes. Reading the wording, content, legislative purpose and system of the provisions together, the Supreme Court held that a base at which the Republic of Korea Armed Forces carry out military operations is a military base under Article 2(i) of the Act on the Protection of Military Bases and Facilities, whether it lies inside Korean territory or is a foreign military base. Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act is therefore not applied to an assault committed there by soldiers and others on soldiers and others, and the appeal was dismissed.
Points at issue, verbatim
군인 등이 대한민국의 국군이 군사작전을 수행하기 위한 근거지에서 군인 등을 폭행한 경우, 대한민국의 영토 내인지, 외국군의 군사기지인지 등과 관계없이 군형법 제60조의6 제1호에 따라 형법 제260조 제3항의 적용이 배제되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a soldier, etc. assaults a soldier, etc. at a base from which the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea conducts military operations, the application of Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act is excluded pursuant to Article 60-6, subparagraph 1 of the Military Criminal Act, irrespective of whether the location is within the territory of the Republic of Korea, a military base of a foreign armed force, etc. (affirmative)
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
위 각 규정의 문언과 내용, 입법 목적 및 관련 규정의 체계적 해석 등을 고려하면, 군인 등이 대한민국의 국군이 군사작전을 수행하기 위한 근거지에서 군인 등을 폭행했다면 그곳이 대한민국의 영토 내인지, 외국군의 군사기지인지 등과 관계없이 군형법 제60조의6 제1호에 따라 형법 제260조 제3항이 적용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Considering the language and content of each of the foregoing provisions, their legislative purpose, and a systematic interpretation of the related provisions, if a soldier, etc. has assaulted a soldier, etc. at a base from which the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea conducts military operations, Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act does not apply thereto pursuant to Article 60-6, subparagraph 1 of the Military Criminal Act, irrespective of whether the location is within the territory of the Republic of Korea, a military base of a foreign armed force, etc.
Factors
- 대한민국의 국군이 군사작전을 수행하기 위한 근거지에서
- 군인 등을 폭행한 경우
- 대한민국의 영토 내인지
- 외국군의 군사기지인지 등과 관계없이
Unofficial English translation
• at a base from which the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea conducts military operations,
• in a case where a soldier, etc. has been assaulted,
• whether the location is within the territory of the Republic of Korea,
• irrespective of whether it is a military base of a foreign armed force, etc.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 6. 15. 선고 2020도927 판결(공2023하, 1255)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2020Do927 decided June 15, 2023 (Gong 2023 Ha, 1255)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2023. 6. 15. 선고 2020도927 판결(공2023하, 1255)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where Republic of Korea forces share a base with foreign forces and operate only from part of it, how is the boundary of the 'base for carrying out military operations' drawn?
A later decision revisiting whether Article 2(i) of the Act on the Protection of Military Bases and Facilities reaches bases outside Korean territory would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 60-6(i) of the Military Criminal Act or to the definition in Article 2(i) of that Act would also change the reading.
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 “Where Republic of Korea forces share a base with foreign forces and operate only from part of it, how is the boundary of the 'base for carrying out military operations' drawn?” vs Independent “What minimum operational connection is required for a temporary overseas location to qualify as a base for South Korean military operations?”
The primary reading asks where the boundary lies when Korean forces share a foreign base, while the independent reading asks what operational link a temporary overseas site needs.
군인 등이 대한민국의 국군이 군사작전을 수행하기 위한 근거지에서 군인 등을 폭행한 경우, 대한민국의 영토 내인지, 외국군의 군사기지인지 등과 관계없이 군형법 제60조의6 제1호에 따라 형법 제260조 제3항의 적용이 배제되는지 여부(적극)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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 27 January 2022 (2020No1739), left standing the first-instance guilty finding on items 6 to 8 of the schedule of offences, namely that the defendant, a soldier, assaulted the victim, a soldier, in the living quarters of base '○○'. It held that even though base '○○' lies outside Korean territory, it is a base prepared for the Republic of Korea Armed Forces to carry out their mission of participating in a force created by the United Nations and is managed by those forces, so Article 60-6(i) of the Military Criminal Act excludes the application of the complaint-only provision, and on that footing rejected the defendant's argument that the public charge on that count had to be dismissed under the victim's wish not to have him punished.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reading. The court below had not breached the rules of logic and experience or overstepped free evaluation, and had not misread the meaning of 'military base' in Article 60-6(i) of the Military Criminal Act; the same was true of the finding on the assault itself under the principles of oral-centred trial and direct hearing. It dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A place at which the Republic of Korea Armed Forces do not carry out military operations, so that it is not a base within Article 2(i) of the Act on the Protection of Military Bases and Facilities.
- An assault in which the assailant is not a soldier and others or the person assaulted is not a soldier and others, since Article 60-6(i) presupposes soldiers and others assaulting soldiers and others.
- An assault committed away from a base of that kind, where the victim's wish not to punish still governs the application of Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.
Record verification notes
Set the file against four points: whether the place is a base at which the Republic of Korea Armed Forces carry out military operations and is managed by them, which the court below found from the mission of participating in a United Nations force; whether both the person who assaulted and the person assaulted were soldiers at the time; whether the victim did not wish punishment, which is the premise the exclusion of Article 260(3) removes; and which provision of Article 60-6 the prosecution or the defence relied on. The Court also referred to Constitutional Court Decision 2022. 3. 31. 2021Heonba62, 194(byeonghap) on the purpose of protecting persons under military service, so read that decision with this one.
From the official text
Points at issue
군인 등이 대한민국의 국군이 군사작전을 수행하기 위한 근거지에서 군인 등을 폭행한 경우, 대한민국의 영토 내인지, 외국군의 군사기지인지 등과 관계없이 군형법 제60조의6 제1호에 따라 형법 제260조 제3항의 적용이 배제되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a soldier, etc. assaults a soldier, etc. at a base from which the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea conducts military operations, the application of Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act is excluded pursuant to Article 60-6, subparagraph 1 of the Military Criminal Act, irrespective of whether the location is within the territory of the Republic of Korea, a military base of a foreign armed force, etc. (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
군형법 제60조의6 제1호, 군사기지 및 군사시설 보호법 제2조 제1호, 형법 제260조 제3항
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