Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Purpose to frustrate the trial as a bar to costs compensation
Supreme Court, Sept. 10, 2024, 2023Mo1766 (ruling)
Case name: 비용보상청구일부인용결정에대한재항고[형사소송법 제194조의2 제2항 제1호에서 정한 무죄판결 확정 후 비용보상의 소극적 요건 해당 여부 및 비용보상의 절차규정 준수 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person who had been a defendant was acquitted and the acquittal became final, but is found to have made a false confession or fabricated other evidence of guilt so as to frustrate the investigation or trial, must the court hear the prosecution and the claimant before deciding the claim for the costs of that trial, and what is required to find that purpose and who must prove it?
Holding
Yes on both points. Article 194-2(2)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows a court not to compensate the whole or part of the costs where the former defendant made a false confession or fabricated other evidence of guilt so as to frustrate the investigation or trial, and Article 194-5 applies Article 14(2) of the Act on Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honour, under which the court must decide after hearing the prosecution and the claimant. Making a false confession or fabricating evidence is not enough on its own; the purpose to frustrate the investigation or trial must also be found, and because that purpose is an exceptional ground restricting the right guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution, it must be found cautiously and proved by the side seeking to restrict the right.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
형사소송법 제194조의2 제2항 제1호에 따라 법원이 비용보상청구의 전부 또는 일부를 기각하기 위해서는 피고인이었던 사람이 단순히 거짓 자백을 하거나 다른 유죄의 증거를 만드는 것만으로는 부족하고 그에게 ‘수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적’이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Under Article 194-2 paragraph (2) subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in order for the court to dismiss all or part of a claim for compensation for expenses, it is not sufficient that the person who had been a defendant merely made a false confession or fabricated other evidence of guilt; that person must have had 'the purpose of obstructing the investigation or the trial'.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피고인이었던 사람이 단순히 거짓 자백을 하거나 다른 유죄의 증거를 만드는 것만으로는 부족하고 그에게 ‘수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적’이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
It is not sufficient that the person who had been a defendant merely made a false confession or fabricated other evidence of guilt; that person must have had 'the purpose of obstructing the investigation or the trial'.
Factors
- 피고인이었던 사람이 단순히 거짓 자백을 하거나 다른 유죄의 증거를 만드는 것만으로는 부족하고
- ‘수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적’이 있어야 한다
- 헌법 제28조가 보장하는 형사보상청구권을 제한하는 예외적인 사유임을 감안할 때 신중하게 인정하여야 하고
- 형사보상청구권을 제한하고자 하는 측에서 이를 입증하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• It is not sufficient that the person who had been a defendant merely made a false confession or fabricated other evidence of guilt, and
• that person must have had 'the purpose of obstructing the investigation or the trial'
• given that it is an exceptional ground for limiting the right to claim criminal compensation guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution, it must be recognized with caution, and
• the party seeking to limit the right to claim criminal compensation must prove it
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 10. 28. 자 2008모577 결정(공2008하, 1815)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2008Mo577 decided October 28, 2008 (Gong 2008 Ha, 1815)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2008. 10. 28. 자 2008모577 결정(공2008하, 1815), 대법원 2010. 9. 30. 자 2010모1021 결정
Burden of proof
The opposing party Stated in the decision
형사보상청구권을 제한하고자 하는 측에서 이를 입증하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The party seeking to limit the right to claim criminal compensation must prove it.
Open question and revisit condition
How much proof does the side seeking to restrict the right need before the purpose to frustrate the investigation or trial is found cautiously enough?
The remanded ruling of the Suwon High Court, once it hears the prosecution and decides whether the whole or part of the claim is dismissed, will show how this ground is applied to the same facts. A later Supreme Court decision tightening or loosening the proof of the purpose, or an amendment to Article 194-2(2)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, would also require this entry to be read again.
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 7 (burden of proof).
Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “The opposing party” vs Independent “The party asserting”
The primary reading names the party seeking to restrict the right, which matches the holding, while the independent reading says the party asserting the point. In this context the holding places the burden on the restricting side, but the phrase asserting could be read as the state, which is the party making the claim.
형사보상청구권을 제한하고자 하는 측에서 이를 입증하여야 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 Suwon High Court, in its ruling of 20 June 2023 (2023Chogi34), granted part of the claimant's claim for the costs of the defamation trial without hearing the prosecution's opinion on it.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this was a breach of the procedural rule in Article 14(2) of the Act on Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honour, applied through Article 194-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a misreading of Article 194-2(2)(i) that left necessary deliberation undone, affecting the outcome. It also set out the facts it could read from the record: the claimant turned himself in for posting a Facebook entry, denied the charge at the first hearing but did not raise any lack of publication, then reversed himself at the second hearing, and reversed again on appeal, raising for the first time that the post had not been public, a matter only he could control. Taking those circumstances and the content of his appeal grounds together, the Court found it likely that he had been prosecuted on a false confession or fabricated evidence made to frustrate the trial, and remanded for deliberation and decision after hearing the prosecution.
Distinguishing conditions
- A costs-compensation claim on which the prosecution's opinion was heard, since the decision turned on the failure to hold that procedure.
- A case with no false confession and no fabricated evidence of guilt, because the conduct alone is not the ground and the purpose must still be found.
- A claim to compensate the damages of an acquittal, since Article 194-2(2)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act deals here with the costs of the trial.
Record verification notes
First check the procedural file for proof that the prosecution's opinion on the claim was taken, since the procedural breach and the misreading of the purpose element together formed the grounds for reversal. Then build the record on the purpose element from the order of events: when the person turned himself in, what he said at each hearing, whether he could have raised the point earlier, and what he wrote in his own appeal grounds. Set against that his explanations for reversing himself, and note that the Court said it was likely to be the case rather than certain.
From the official text
Points at issue
피고인이었던 사람에 대하여 무죄판결이 확정되었으나 그 사람이 수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적으로 거짓 자백을 하거나 다른 유죄의 증거를 만들어 기소된 것으로 인정된 경우, 그 재판에 소요된 비용의 보상청구에 대하여 법원은 검사와 청구인의 의견을 들은 후 결정하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 이때 비용보상청구의 전부 또는 일부를 기각하기 위한 요건 중 ‘수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적’을 인정할 때 유의할 점 및 그에 대한 증명책임 소재(=형사보상청구권을 제한하고자 하는 측)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a person who had been a defendant has been acquitted and the judgment has become final and conclusive, but that person is recognized as having been prosecuted for making a false confession or fabricating other evidence of guilt for the purpose of obstructing the investigation or the trial, the court must decide the claim for compensation for expenses incurred in that trial after hearing the opinions of the prosecutor and the claimant (affirmative) / Matters to be noted in recognizing 'the purpose of obstructing the investigation or the trial' among the requirements for dismissing all or part of a claim for compensation for expenses in whole or in part, and the locus of the burden of proof thereon (= the party seeking to limit the right to claim criminal compensation)
Summary of the holding
형사소송법 제194조의2 제2항 제1호는 피고인이었던 사람이 수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적으로 거짓 자백을 하거나 다른 유죄의 증거를 만들어 기소된 것으로 인정된 경우에는 그 재판에 소요된 비용의 전부 또는 일부를 보상하지 아니할 수 있다고 규정하고 있고, 형사소송법 제194조의5에 의하여 준용되는 형사보상 및 명예회복에 관한 법률 제14조 제2항은 보상청구에 대하여 법원은 검사와 청구인의 의견을 들은 후 결정을 하여야 한다고 규정하고 있다. 그런데 형사소송법 제194조의2 제2항 제1호에 따라 법원이 비용보상청구의 전부 또는 일부를 기각하기 위해서는 피고인이었던 사람이 단순히 거짓 자백을 하거나 다른 유죄의 증거를 만드는 것만으로는 부족하고 그에게 ‘수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적’이 있어야 한다. 여기서 ‘수사 또는 재판을 그르칠 목적’은 헌법 제28조가 보장하는 형사보상청구권을 제한하는 예외적인 사유임을 감안할 때 신중하게 인정하여야 하고, 형사보상청구권을 제한하고자 하는 측에서 이를 입증하여야 한다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제28조, 형사소송법 제194조의2 제1항, 제2항 제1호, 제194조의5, 형사보상 및 명예회복에 관한 법률 제14조 제2항
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