The double jeopardy protection afforded by the Korean Constitution in Article 13 is applied in a different manner than in, most, common law nations. The application, in Korea, allows the prosecution to have three chances to obtain a guilty verdict.
For example, in the United States, a defendant may not be tried for the same or similar offense, within a specific jurisdiction, when a “conclusion” is made in any court.
Thus, if a jury or judge finds a defendant not guilty, the prosecution may not bring the same or similar charges against the defendant.
However, if all jury members are unable to come to the same conclusion (thus, some vote guilty and some not guilty), the jury is deemed “hung” and the prosecution may request another trial.
In Korea, the rules is, essentially the same, however, the application of the “conclusion” determination is different.
A “conclusion” of the case is, only, deemed when the Supreme Court makes a final a decision or the prosecutor chooses not to appeal a decision. Thus, the prosecutor has, in most instances the District Court, the High Court (or three judge panel in District Court) and the Supreme Court to establish the guilt of a defendant.
An exception is with those under the U.S.-Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that are prosecuted in Korea. The SOFA protects the right to an American-style double jeopardy. However, we have seen cases where the prosecutor has appealed, thus, placing the burden on the court to dismiss the case based on SOFA grounds.
Other articles on Korean criminal law that may be interest.
- Signs that You Hired a Great Korean Defense Attorney
- Misunderstanding of Suspension of Criminal Sentence in Korea
- Foreigners’ Drug use in Korea
___
Sean Hayes may be contacted at: [email protected]
Sean Hayes is co-chair of the Korea Practice Team at IPG Legal. He is the first non-Korean attorney to have worked for the Korean court system (Constitutional Court of Korea) and one of the first non-Koreans to be a regular member of a Korean law faculty. Sean is ranked, for Korea, as one of only two non-Korean lawyers as a Top Attorney by AsiaLaw.
Similar Posts:
- Constitutional Court Upholds Cellphone Ban While Driving
- Migrant Worker Labor Union Denied Registration in Korea
- International Child Abduction in Korea: Removing a Child Back to the Country of Residence of the Custodial Parent via the Korean Courts Explained
- IPG’s Representative Clients & Matters
- Definition of “Ordinary Wage” in Korea: Korean Employment & Labor Law Basics
- South Korean Act on International Judicial Mutual Assistance in Civil Matters: Obtaining Evidence via Korean Courts and the Korean Government for use in Proceedings Abroad
- Immigration updates for Foreigners In Korea: Expiration of Visas
- Korean Law in English Online
- Korea’s Cyber Defamation Law: Basics of Libel and Slander in Korea
- Tax Incentives May Decrease for Foreign Companies doing Business in Korea: Tax Law Updates
You must log in to post a comment.