형사소송법상 공소시효 정지 규정의 양벌규정에서의 적용 여부 - 대법원 2025. 5. 1. 선고 2024도15290 판결 -

Article 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act(‘Act’) provides that the suspension of the statute of limitations resulting from the institution of public prosecution also extends to co-offenders. This provision, as an exception to Article 248(1), raises interpretive questions regarding the scope of “co-offender,” particularly whether it includes necessary co-offenders and parties under joint penal provisions. Although the Supreme Court has previously adopted a broad understanding of “co-offender” under Article 312, it held in a 2015 decision that Article 253(2) must be interpreted narrowly. The Court held that mutually antagonistic parties and those subject to joint penal provisions fall outside the definition of “co-offender” in the context of statutory tolling. Given that joint penal provisions impose criminal liability on business owners based on independent duties of supervision, the relationship between the actual offender and the business owner cannot justify extending procedural consequences such as the suspension of the statute of limitations. As a provision that imposes a disadvantage on the defendant, Article 253(2) must be interpreted strictly and narrowly. In the absence of a clear statutory definition, the term “co-offender” should be limited to voluntary accomplices as defined in the General Part of the Criminal Act. Given the principle of legal certainty embedded in the statute of limitations, extending tolling effects to parties not directly subject to prosecution is difficult to justify. Accordingly, legislative reconsideration of the provision — including the possibility of its repeal — appears both necessary and appropriate.