Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Retrial finality and expiry of prior sentences in aggravated punishment
Supreme Court, Nov. 30, 2023, 2023Do10699 (judgment)
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a final conviction is retried and the retrial judgment becomes final, does the earlier judgment automatically lose all effect, and do sentences that have expired under Article 7(1) of the Act on the Expiry of Punishment still count as a 'case of having received an imprisonment sentence' under Article 5-4(5) of the Special Act on Aggravated Punishment?
Holding
Yes to the first question, and no to the second. Once a retrial judgment on a guilty conviction becomes final, the earlier final judgment automatically loses effect, so the legal effects of the original judgment and its ancillary measures fall away, and even the bare fact that a sentence had been pronounced ceases to have effect. Because an expired sentence loses its legal effects only prospectively, it is not a prior conviction of 'having received an imprisonment sentence' under Article 5-4(5) of the Special Act on Aggravated Punishment; and where a person received two or more imprisonment sentences and the statutory period has run from the day the last sentence was completed without receiving a punishment of disqualification or higher, all the sentences preceding that last one are also treated as expired.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
유죄의 확정판결에 대하여 재심개시결정이 확정되어 법원이 그 사건에 대하여 다시 심판을 한 후 재심판결을 선고하고 그 재심판결이 확정된 때에는 종전의 확정판결은 당연히 효력을 상실하므로, 재심판결이 확정됨에 따라 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a commencement decision for a retrial against a final and conclusive judgment of guilty has become final and conclusive, and the court, having re-adjudicated the case, renders a retrial judgment and that retrial judgment becomes final and conclusive, the previous final and conclusive judgment automatically loses its effect; therefore, upon the retrial judgment becoming final and conclusive, 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.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
형의 실효 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘형실효법’이라고 한다) 제7조 제1항은 ‘수형인이 자격정지 이상의 형을 받음이 없이 형의 집행을 종료하거나 그 집행이 면제된 날부터 같은 항 각호에서 정한 기간이 경과한 때에는 그 형은 실효된다.’고 정하고, 같은 항 제2호에서 3년 이하의 징역·금고형의 경우는 그 기간을 5년으로 정하고 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 7 (1) of the Act on the Lapse of Sentences, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Sentence Lapse Act") provides that 'Where a prisoner, without having been sentenced to a suspension of qualification or a heavier sentence, has completed the execution of sentence or has been exempted from such execution, and the period specified in each subparagraph of the same paragraph has elapsed from that date, the sentence is extinguished,' and subparagraph 2 of the same paragraph sets that period at five years in the case of a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment without work for three years or less.
Factors
- 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸한다
- 형의 선고에 의한 법적 효과가 장래에 향하여 소멸되므로
- 그 전과를 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항에서 정한 “징역형을 받은 경우”로 볼 수 없다
- 2번 이상의 징역형을 받은 자가 자격정지 이상의 형을 받음이 없이 마지막 형의 집행을 종료한 날부터 위 법에서 정한 기간을 경과한 때에는 그 마지막 형에 앞서는 형도 모두 실효되는 것으로 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• 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
• since the legal effect arising from the pronouncement of a sentence is extinguished prospectively
• the prior conviction cannot be regarded as "a case where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment" as provided in Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes
• where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment twice or more has, without having been sentenced to a suspension of qualification or a heavier sentence, completed the execution of sentence of the last sentence, and the period specified in the above Act has elapsed from that date, all sentences preceding that last sentence must also be regarded as having lapsed
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 9. 21. 선고 2017도4019 판결(공2017하, 2042), 대법원 2018. 2. 28. 선고 2015도15782 판결(공2018상, 657)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do4019 decided September 21, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 2042), Supreme Court Decision 2015Do15782 decided February 28, 2018 (Gong 2018 Sang, 657)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 9. 21. 선고 2017도4019 판결(공2017하, 2042), 대법원 2018. 2. 28. 선고 2015도15782 판결(공2018상, 657) / [2] 대법원 2010. 9. 9. 선고 2010도8021 판결(공2010하, 1963)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where several sentences were served as concurrent sentences and the combined sentence was executed, does the statutory period still run from the day the execution of each constituent sentence ended?
A later decision addressing expiry in a case of combined sentences, or a decision on how the two rules interact where a retrial judgment becomes final only after the expiry period has already run, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 7(1) of the Act on the Expiry of Punishment or Article 5-4(5) of the Special Act on Aggravated Punishment has the same effect.
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 several sentences were served as concurrent sentences and the combined sentence was executed, does the statutory period still run from the day the execution of each constituent sentence ended?” vs Independent “How should the statutory expiration period be calculated when a final retrial judgment changes the duration of a sentence already served?”
The primary asks whether the expiry period for concurrent sentences runs from the end of each sentence or the combined execution, while the independent asks how the period is computed when a retrial changes the duration of a sentence already served.
유죄의 확정판결에 대하여 재심개시결정이 확정되어 법원이 그 사건에 대하여 다시 심판을 한 후 재심판결을 선고하고 그 재심판결이 확정된 때에는 종전의 확정판결은 당연히 효력을 상실하므로, 재심판결이 확정됨에 따라 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸한다.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 Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 14 July 2023 (2023No979, 2238), applied Article 5-4(5)(i) of the Special Act on Aggravated Punishment and convicted the defendant. The decision does not set out how the court below counted the prior convictions.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the retrial judgments on the fourth and fifth prior convictions became final on 9 June 2023 and 20 April 2023 respectively, so those convictions lost all effect and the effect that a sentence had been pronounced was extinguished. It then found that the five-year period under Article 7(1)(ii) of the Act on the Expiry of Punishment had plainly run from 1 February 2009 to 13 June 2016, so the first through third prior convictions had all expired, leaving only the sixth. That was a misreading of the meaning of a person who 'has received an imprisonment sentence' three or more times, so the judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the retrial has been opened but the retrial judgment has not yet become final, so that the earlier final judgment has not lost effect.
- A case in which the convicted person received a punishment of disqualification or higher in connection with the sentence, so that the expiry condition under Article 7(1) is not met.
- A sentence of more than three years of imprisonment, or a period shorter than the five years set for a sentence of three years or less under Article 7(1)(ii).
Record verification notes
Set out every prior conviction with its sentence, the date the sentence was completed, and the date of each retrial judgment's finality, since the Court counted all of them in this way. Confirm that no punishment of disqualification or higher was received for any of the sentences concerned. Then check whether the expiry runs from the day the sentence was completed or exempted, and whether Article 5-4(5)(i) counts only sentences for the offences in Articles 329 to 331 of the Criminal Act or attempts thereat.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 유죄의 확정판결에 대한 재심개시결정이 확정되어 법원이 그 사건에 대하여 다시 심판을 한 후 재심판결을 선고하여 확정된 경우, 종전 확정판결은 당연히 효력을 상실하는지 여부(적극) 및 재심판결 확정의 효력 범위 [2] 형의 실효 등에 관한 법률 제7조 제1항에서 정한 기간의 경과로 형이 실효된 경우, 그 전과가 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항에서 정한 “징역형을 받은 경우”에 해당하는지 여부(소극) / 2번 이상의 징역형을 받은 자가 자격정지 이상의 형을 받음이 없이 마지막 형의 집행을 종료한 날부터 형의 실효 등에 관한 법률에서 정한 기간을 경과한 경우, 그 마지막 형에 앞서는 형도 모두 실효되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where a commencement decision for a retrial against a final and conclusive judgment of guilty has become final and conclusive, and the court, having re-adjudicated the case, has rendered a retrial judgment and that retrial judgment has become final and conclusive, whether the previous final and conclusive judgment automatically loses its effect (affirmative), and the scope of the effect of the finality of the retrial judgment [2] Where a sentence has lapsed by reason of the lapse of the period specified in Article 7 (1) of the Act on the Lapse of Sentences, Etc., whether such prior conviction falls under "a case where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment" as provided in Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (negative) / Where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment twice or more has, without having been sentenced to a suspension of qualification or a heavier sentence, completed the execution of sentence of the last sentence, and the period specified in the Act on the Lapse of Sentences, Etc. has elapsed from that date, whether all sentences preceding that last sentence are also extinguished (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 유죄의 확정판결에 대하여 재심개시결정이 확정되어 법원이 그 사건에 대하여 다시 심판을 한 후 재심판결을 선고하고 그 재심판결이 확정된 때에는 종전의 확정판결은 당연히 효력을 상실하므로, 재심판결이 확정됨에 따라 원판결이나 그 부수처분의 법률적 효과가 상실되고 형 선고가 있었다는 기왕의 사실 자체의 효과가 소멸한다. [2] 형의 실효 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘형실효법’이라고 한다) 제7조 제1항은 ‘수형인이 자격정지 이상의 형을 받음이 없이 형의 집행을 종료하거나 그 집행이 면제된 날부터 같은 항 각호에서 정한 기간이 경과한 때에는 그 형은 실효된다.’고 정하고, 같은 항 제2호에서 3년 이하의 징역·금고형의 경우는 그 기간을 5년으로 정하고 있다. 위 규정에 따라 형이 실효된 경우에는 형의 선고에 의한 법적 효과가 장래에 향하여 소멸되므로, 그 전과를 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항에서 정한 “징역형을 받은 경우”로 볼 수 없다. 한편 형실효법의 입법 취지에 비추어 보면, 2번 이상의 징역형을 받은 자가 자격정지 이상의 형을 받음이 없이 마지막 형의 집행을 종료한 날부터 위 법에서 정한 기간을 경과한 때에는 그 마지막 형에 앞서는 형도 모두 실효되는 것으로 보아야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제420조, 제435조, 제438조 [2] 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항, 형의 실효 등에 관한 법률 제7조 제1항
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