즉결심판과 통고처분에 있어서의 일사부재리의 효력

If all the crimes arising in society are punished through formal process of public trial then it may function as a disadvantage to defendants who committed minor offences thus desire quick trial. Going through useless complex process is contrary to principle for economy in lawsuit. Accordingly countries of the world stipulated system for trial process by simple method for minor crime case. In our country also as simple public trial process for minor cases there are summary trial and fine notice disposition. Summary trial is a system under which minor crime is not disposed by public trial process according to general criminal proceedings law but by simple and speedy trial process. Such summary trial is defined as possessing identical effect of confirmed judgement and even in precedents of Supreme Court broad effect of confirmed judgements is recognized. Also according to fine notice disposition under the law for punishment of minor offence and road traffic law if chief of police station etc. notifies money penalty as stipulated in the law against certain action of law violation to the violater and if such violator pays such money penalty then process of punishment is closed. Only when violator fails to perform it then such violator is subjected to trial under summary trial process thus it is preceding stage of summary trial. For payment of money penalty under such fine notice disposition effect of confirmed judgement is recognized. Summary trial has special feature which is different from ordinary trial process in terms of trial process and principle on evidence. Also fine notice disposition system ends criminal law process through payment of money penalty by violator thus it excludes court's intervention on process and contents. Regarding summary trial or fine notice disposition effect of confirmed judgement is provided from the standpoint of closing the relevent process. Even though Supreme Court recognized extensive effect of confirmed judgement on summary trial and law on punishment of minor offence regarding payment of money penalty but with respect to payment of money penalty according to road traffic law the Supreme Court granted only limited recognition thus general criminal case is excluded from it. Such attitude of Supreme Court is considered as completely ignoring form of current law and regulation under which fine notice disposition regulation according to law on punishment of minor offence and road traffic law are completely identical in terms of form of legislation, amount of money penalty, process and effect of payment and method of protest etc. It is also contrary to current judgement of Supreme Court. Under which it was stated that regarding recognizing effect of confirmed judgement on payment of money penalty according to summary trial and law on punishment of minor offences it is necessary to consider normative elements in passing judgement on identity of prosecution fact. Therefore effect of confirmed judgement under the summary trial and law for punishment of minor offences should be applied identically. Thus in view of special nature of the system and tenor of the law correct interpretation would be that effect of confirmed judgement reaches only to relevant action in case of summary trial or payment of money penalty. But even when it has close relationship with above for criminal case under criminal law which is conspicuously different in terms of nature of crime and legally prescribed punishment no effect of confirmed judgement should be recognized. Accordingly it is required to change current judgement of Supreme Court on fine notice disposition under summary trial and law on summary trial which lack not only consistency but also contrary to trial result on identity of prosection toward the direction of uniform interpretation.