The Constitutional Court has decided to review the constitutionality of a provision that nullifies a suspended sentence if a defendant receives a confirmed sentence for another crime during the suspension period, regardless of when the crime occurred.
On July 7, the court referred two cases to the full bench following a deliberation by a designated panel of three justices.
One of the cases involves an individual, referred to as A, who was fined for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. A filed a constitutional appeal against the court's decision.
A was sentenced to a suspended fine of 700 million won by the Incheon District Court in July 2024 for issuing false tax invoices. The suspended sentence allows for the postponement of a sentence for relatively minor crimes, with the possibility of exemption from punishment after a two-year period. However, according to Article 61 of the Criminal Act, if a confirmed sentence of a disqualification or higher is imposed during the suspension period, the suspended sentence is rendered void.
During the suspension period, A was sentenced to one year in prison for a separate case of breach of trust in November 2025. In December of that year, the Incheon District Court accepted the prosecution's request to nullify the suspended sentence, imposing the 700 million won fine on A. A appealed, but both the Incheon branch of the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the decision.
A argues that the provision nullifying the suspended sentence and the court's application of it are unconstitutional, claiming that individuals with suspended sentences are treated less favorably than those with probation, violating the principle of equality.
Article 63 of the Criminal Act states that if a person sentenced to probation receives a confirmed sentence of imprisonment for a crime committed intentionally during the probation period, the probation loses its effect. In contrast, the suspended sentence provision nullifies the sentence based solely on the confirmation of a ruling, regardless of the timing of the crime, which A contends is discriminatory.
The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing three cases related to this provision's constitutionality.
Additionally, a constitutional appeal was also accepted for review regarding a case where an appeal was dismissed due to a late submission of the appeal reasons. Three individuals, including B, filed a damages claim in May 2024 due to school violence, but their case was dismissed in the first instance on July 17 of the following year.
After appealing on July 31, they submitted their appeal reasons on October 12. However, their appeal was dismissed on October 20 because the appeal reasons were not submitted within 40 days of the notification of the case record.
The petitioners argue that the appeal reasons submission system was newly introduced to expedite the resolution of appeals lacking merit and to clarify the issues in the appellate court. They claim that dismissing their appeal despite submitting the reasons before the court's decision infringes on their right to seek judicial relief and their right to equality.
This case regarding the appeal reasons submission period is one of five constitutional appeals that have already passed preliminary review and are currently under consideration by the full bench.
Since the implementation of the constitutional appeal system, the total number of formally referred cases has increased to 12.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.