Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Ex officio conviction of the joint principal part the first instance acquitted
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2025, 2025Do8460 (judgment)
Case name: 전기통신금융사기피해방지및피해금환급에관한특별법위반·범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the first instance convicted the defendants as accomplices but in its reasons found the jointly charged joint principal offence unproved, and the prosecutor appealed the whole judgment alleging only that the sentence was too heavy, may the appellate court of its own motion find them guilty of the joint principal offence?
Holding
It may not. Although the prosecutor's appeal of the whole judgment carried the whole offence up to the appellate court, the part found not guilty does not in fact become a matter for adjudication, and any illegality in the first-instance judgment on it is neither a ground for investigation under the proviso to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act nor a matter the appellate court may adjudicate ex officio under Article 364(2). Unless there are special circumstances, recognising the joint principal offence ex officio works to the defendant's disadvantage in exercising the right of defence and is not permitted.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러므로 이러한 경우에 항소심법원이 직권으로 무죄로 판단된 공동정범 부분을 유죄로 인정하여 처벌하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고인의 방어권 행사에 불이익을 초래하는 것으로서 허용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, in such a case, unless there are special circumstances, the appellate court's finding, ex officio, of the joint principal offender portion, which was found not guilty, to be guilty and punishing the defendant is not permitted, as it causes disadvantage to the exercise of the defendant's right of defense.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그리고 그 부분에 관한 제1심판결의 위법은 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서의 ‘직권조사사유’ 또는 같은 법 제364조 제2항에 정한 ‘항소법원은 판결에 영향을 미친 사유에 관하여는 항소이유서에 포함되지 아니한 경우에도 직권으로 심판할 수 있다.’는 경우에도 해당되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Moreover, any illegality in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding that portion falls neither under the 'grounds for ex officio investigation' in the proviso to Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act nor under the case provided in Article 364 (2) of the same Act that 'the appellate court may adjudicate ex officio on matters that have influenced the judgment even if they are not included in the statement of grounds for appeal.'
Factors
- 제1심법원이 공동정범으로 공소가 제기된 범죄사실을 정범의 형보다 감경되어야 하는 방조범으로 인정하면서 피고인을 처벌하고 공동정범 부분에 대하여는 범죄의 증명이 없다는 이유로 판결 이유에서 무죄로 판단한 데 대하여
- 검사가 제1심판결 전부에 대하여 항소를 제기하였으나 그 항소이유서에서 양형부당을 주장하였을 뿐 무죄로 판단된 공동정범 부분에 대하여는 아무런 언급을 하지 아니한 경우에는
- 비록 검사의 항소로 인하여 그 죄 전부가 항소심에 이심되었다고 하더라도 무죄 부분은 사실상 심판대상이 되지 않는다
- 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서의 ‘직권조사사유’
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고인의 방어권 행사에 불이익을 초래하는 것으로서 허용되지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• As to the fact that the court of first instance, finding the criminal facts charged as a joint principal offender to constitute an aider and abettor, who must be sentenced more leniently than the principal offender, punished the defendant, while finding the joint principal offender portion not guilty in the reasons for the judgment on the ground that there was no proof of the crime,
• where the prosecutor appealed from the entire judgment of the court of first instance but, in the statement of grounds for appeal, asserted only improper sentencing and made no mention whatsoever of the joint principal offender portion found not guilty,
• even though, by reason of the prosecutor's appeal, the entire crime was transferred to the appellate court, the not guilty portion does not in substance become a matter for adjudication
• 'grounds for ex officio investigation' in the proviso to Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
• unless there are special circumstances, it is not permitted, as it causes disadvantage to the exercise of the defendant's right of defense
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
비록 검사의 항소로 인하여 그 죄 전부가 항소심에 이심되었다고 하더라도 무죄 부분은 사실상 심판대상이 되지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
even though, by reason of the prosecutor's appeal, the entire crime was transferred to the appellate court, the not guilty portion does not in substance become a matter for adjudication
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances are special enough that recognising the jointly charged joint principal offence ex officio does not disadvantage the defendant's exercise of the right of defence?
The retrial judgment of the Daejeon High Court after this remand will show how the boundary of the appellate issue is drawn in practice. A later Supreme Court decision defining the special circumstances that permit ex officio conviction, or an amendment to Article 361-4(1) or Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The source articulates a specific restriction on appellate review without identifying its relationship to earlier decisions, allowing one reading to emphasize a newly stated criterion and the other to leave precedent status undetermined.
비록 검사의 항소로 인하여 그 죄 전부가 항소심에 이심되었다고 하더라도 무죄 부분은 사실상 심판대상이 되지 않는다Raw 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 first-instance court found the defendants guilty of concealing criminal proceeds and, on the offence under the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage by Voice Phishing and Refund of Damage, held that a joint principal offence was not made out but an accomplice offence was, finding the joint principal part unproved in its reasons. The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 16 May 2025 (2025No110), treated the whole offence as carried up by the prosecutor's appeal and of its own motion found the defendants' intent to defraud, an implicit and tacit conspiracy with members of the fraud organisation, and functional control through an essential contribution. It therefore reversed the first-instance judgment as factually wrong, convicted both offences as joint principal offences, and sentenced Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to one year of imprisonment each and Defendant 3 to one year and two months, heavier than the first instance.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the scope of appellate adjudication and that the mistake affected the judgment. Supreme Court Decision 2001. 2. 9. (2000Do5000), on which the court below relied, was distinguishable and inappropriate to apply here. The reason for reversal was common to co-defendant Defendant 1, so that part of the judgment was reversed as well under Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and because the reversed part stood in concurrence under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the rest, the whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Daejeon High Court, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the prosecutor's grounds of appeal include reasons directed at the part found not guilty, so that part squarely falls within the appellate issue.
- A case in which the illegality of the first-instance judgment on that part is a ground for investigation under the proviso to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act or a matter the appellate court may adjudicate ex officio under Article 364(2).
- A case in which special circumstances mean that recognising the joint principal offence ex officio causes no disadvantage to the exercise of the defendant's right of defence.
Record verification notes
Set the appellate brief against the judgment below and look for any statement of reasons touching the part the first instance acquitted, since the decision turns on the absence of such a statement. Then ask whether the illegality the prosecution relies on would qualify as a ground for investigation, and gather any special circumstances, because the prohibition applies unless such circumstances exist. Note also that the reversal spreads: the reason was common to co-defendant Defendant 1, so the whole judgment fell and the entire file, including the conviction for concealing criminal proceeds, goes back to the Daejeon High Court.
From the official text
Points at issue
공동정범으로 공소가 제기된 범죄사실을 방조범으로 인정하면서 공동정범 부분에 대하여는 판결 이유에서 무죄로 판단한 제1심판결 전부에 대하여 검사가 항소를 제기하였으나 항소이유서에서 양형부당을 주장하였을 뿐 무죄로 판단된 공동정범 부분에 대하여는 아무런 언급을 하지 아니한 경우, 무죄 부분이 항소심의 심판대상이 되는지 여부(소극) 및 무죄 부분에 관한 제1심판결의 위법이 직권조사사유 또는 직권심판사항에 해당하는지 여부(소극) / 이때 항소심법원이 직권으로 무죄로 판단된 공동정범 부분을 유죄로 인정하여 처벌하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the not guilty portion becomes a matter for adjudication by the appellate court (negative), and whether any illegality in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the not guilty portion constitutes 'grounds for ex officio investigation' or 'matters subject to ex officio adjudication' (negative), where the prosecutor appealed from the entire judgment of the court of first instance, which had found the criminal facts charged as a joint principal offender to constitute an aider and abettor while finding the joint principal offender portion not guilty in the reasons for the judgment, but asserted only improper sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal and made no mention whatsoever of the joint principal offender portion found not guilty / Whether, in such a case, it is permissible for the appellate court to find the joint principal offender portion, which was found not guilty, to be guilty ex officio and punish the defendant (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
제1심법원이 공동정범으로 공소가 제기된 범죄사실을 정범의 형보다 감경되어야 하는 방조범으로 인정하면서 피고인을 처벌하고 공동정범 부분에 대하여는 범죄의 증명이 없다는 이유로 판결 이유에서 무죄로 판단한 데 대하여, 검사가 제1심판결 전부에 대하여 항소를 제기하였으나 그 항소이유서에서 양형부당을 주장하였을 뿐 무죄로 판단된 공동정범 부분에 대하여는 아무런 언급을 하지 아니한 경우에는, 비록 검사의 항소로 인하여 그 죄 전부가 항소심에 이심되었다고 하더라도 무죄 부분은 사실상 심판대상이 되지 않는다. 그리고 그 부분에 관한 제1심판결의 위법은 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서의 ‘직권조사사유’ 또는 같은 법 제364조 제2항에 정한 ‘항소법원은 판결에 영향을 미친 사유에 관하여는 항소이유서에 포함되지 아니한 경우에도 직권으로 심판할 수 있다.’는 경우에도 해당되지 않는다. 그러므로 이러한 경우에 항소심법원이 직권으로 무죄로 판단된 공동정범 부분을 유죄로 인정하여 처벌하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고인의 방어권 행사에 불이익을 초래하는 것으로서 허용되지 않는다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Provisions referred to
형법 제30조, 제32조, 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항, 제364조 제1항, 제2항
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