Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Pre-investigation coercion within Article 5-9(4) of the Aggravated Punishment Act
Supreme Court, Oct. 16, 2025, 2025Do5325 (judgment)
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(면담강요등)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does coercion used before any investigation or trial has begun fall within the offence under Article 5-9(4) of the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act, and what conditions must be met for it to do so?
Holding
Yes. Article 5-9(4) is not confined to conduct committed while an investigation or trial into one's own or another's criminal case has already begun and is under way, so coercion before an investigation or trial may also be an offence under that Article. Because the offence protects the smooth working of the state's criminal justice function, however, pre-investigation coercion qualifies only where the situation is one in which an investigation or trial is sufficiently anticipated, the force is used without just cause against a person who knows necessary facts about that investigation or trial, or that person's family, and the actor has the requisite intent.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특정범죄가중법 제5조의9 제4항은 그 적용 범위를 행위자의 행위 당시 ‘자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판이 개시되어 진행 중인 경우’로 한정하고 있지 않으므로, 수사 또는 재판 전의 위력 행사 등도 위 조항 위반행위에 해당할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 5-9 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes does not limit its scope of application to cases where, at the time of the actor's conduct, "the investigation or trial of one's own or another's criminal case has been commenced and is in progress"; therefore, an exercise of force and the like prior to an investigation or trial may also constitute a violation of the said provision.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
여기서 ‘수사 또는 재판이 충분히 예상되는 상황’이란 범죄 혐의사실의 구체성과 경중, 피해자나 목격자 등의 존부, 피해 상황, 범죄 신고·고소·고발 등에 대한 적극성, 수사기관의 범행 인지 용이성 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 구체적 사건에 따라 개별적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, a situation in which "an investigation or trial is sufficiently foreseeable" must be determined individually according to each specific case, by comprehensively considering various circumstances such as the specificity and gravity of the suspected criminal facts, the existence or non-existence of victims, witnesses, and the like, the circumstances of the harm, the degree of proactivity in reporting, filing a complaint, or making an accusation with respect to a crime, and the ease with which the investigating agency may become aware of the offense.
Factors
- 범죄 혐의사실의 구체성과 경중
- 피해자나 목격자 등의 존부
- 피해 상황
- 범죄 신고·고소·고발 등에 대한 적극성
- 수사기관의 범행 인지 용이성
Unofficial English translation
• The specificity and gravity of the suspected criminal facts
• The existence or non-existence of victims, witnesses, and the like
• The circumstances of the harm
• The degree of proactivity in reporting, filing a complaint, or making an accusation with respect to a crime
• The ease with which the investigating agency may become aware of the offense
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
특정범죄가중법 제5조의9 제4항은 그 적용 범위를 행위자의 행위 당시 ‘자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판이 개시되어 진행 중인 경우’로 한정하고 있지 않으므로
Unofficial English translation
Article 5-9 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes does not limit its scope of application to cases where, at the time of the actor's conduct, "the investigation or trial of one's own or another's criminal case has been commenced and is in progress"; therefore
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight should be given to each of the five circumstances when they point in different directions on whether an investigation or trial was sufficiently anticipated?
A later decision applying the five circumstances to facts where the surrounding circumstances conflict would show how the balance is struck. An amendment to Article 5-9(4) of the Specific Crime Aggravated Punishment Act or to Article 13 of the Criminal Act would also require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The text states both the conditions for the offense and an overall assessment of foreseeability, allowing the primary to emphasize holistic consideration and the independent to emphasize requirements.
자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판이 충분히 예상되는 상황에서 그 수사 또는 재판과 관련하여 필요한 사실을 알고 있는 사람 등에게 정당한 사유 없이 위력 행사 등을 하여야 하고 그에 관한 고의도 있어야 한다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary can view the articulated conditions and foreseeability factors as a new standard, while the independent can regard the relationship to precedent as unascertainable because the supplied text does not describe earlier decisions.
특정범죄가중법 제5조의9 제4항은 그 적용 범위를 행위자의 행위 당시 ‘자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판이 개시되어 진행 중인 경우’로 한정하고 있지 않으므로Raw 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 Changwon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 1 April 2025 (2023No3039), set aside the guilty verdict of the first instance and acquitted the defendant. It held that at the time of the acts in the indictment it was hard to see that the defendant was already suspected of coercive cruel treatment of successor soldiers or that such conduct was concretely about to become a criminal case, and that it could not be confidently concluded that he was aware, on that footing, that he was using force against the victim in connection with an investigation into his own criminal case.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law it stated and the record, it held that the court below had not violated the rules of logic and experience, had not stepped outside the limits of free evaluation, and had not misread the elements of the offence. It dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Force used where no investigation or trial into one's own or another's criminal case was sufficiently anticipated on the concrete facts of the case.
- Force used against a person who does not know the facts necessary to the investigation or trial.
- Force used without the intent to act in connection with the anticipated investigation or trial, which the Court requires as a separate element.
Record verification notes
Set the acts charged against the five circumstances the Court listed one by one, since the sufficiency of the anticipated investigation or trial is decided on all of them together. Then separate the question of intent from the surrounding facts, because the court below acquitted on both grounds. Note also that the decision applied Article 5-9(4) and cited no earlier decision on the point.
From the official text
Points at issue
특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의9 제4항 위반(면담강요등)죄의 구성요건 중 ‘자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판과 관련하여’에 행위자의 행위 당시 ‘수사 또는 재판이 개시되어 진행 중인 경우’뿐만 아니라 수사 또는 재판 전의 위력 행사 등도 포함되는지 여부(적극) / 수사 또는 재판 전의 위력 행사 등이 같은 법 제5조의9 제4항 위반(면담강요등)죄에 해당하기 위한 요건 및 그 판단 기준
Unofficial English translation
Whether the phrase "in connection with the investigation or trial of one's own or another's criminal case," which forms part of the constituent elements of the crime of violation of Article 5-9 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (interview coercion, etc.), covers not only cases where, at the time of the actor's conduct, "the investigation or trial has been commenced and is in progress" but also the exercise of force and the like prior to the investigation or trial (affirmative) / The requirements for an exercise of force and the like prior to an investigation or trial to constitute the crime of violation of Article 5-9 (4) of the same Act (interview coercion, etc.), and the criteria for such determination
Summary of the holding
특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정범죄가중법’이라 한다) 제5조의9 제4항은 자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판과 관련하여 필요한 사실을 알고 있는 사람 또는 그 친족에게 정당한 사유 없이 면담을 강요하거나 위력을 행사한 사람을 처벌하도록 하고 있다. 특정범죄가중법 제5조의9 제4항은 그 적용 범위를 행위자의 행위 당시 ‘자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판이 개시되어 진행 중인 경우’로 한정하고 있지 않으므로, 수사 또는 재판 전의 위력 행사 등도 위 조항 위반행위에 해당할 수 있다. 다만 특정범죄가중법 제5조의9 제4항 위반죄는 국가의 형사사법기능의 원활한 작용 등을 보호법익으로 하므로, 수사 또는 재판 전의 위력 행사 등이 위 조항 위반죄에 해당하기 위해서는 자기 또는 타인의 형사사건의 수사 또는 재판이 충분히 예상되는 상황에서 그 수사 또는 재판과 관련하여 필요한 사실을 알고 있는 사람 등에게 정당한 사유 없이 위력 행사 등을 하여야 하고 그에 관한 고의도 있어야 한다. 여기서 ‘수사 또는 재판이 충분히 예상되는 상황’이란 범죄 혐의사실의 구체성과 경중, 피해자나 목격자 등의 존부, 피해 상황, 범죄 신고·고소·고발 등에 대한 적극성, 수사기관의 범행 인지 용이성 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 구체적 사건에 따라 개별적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의9 제4항, 형법 제13조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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