【Holding】
[1] Whether a lawful application under Article 59-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has been made where a person has expressly and definitively indicated to the public prosecutors' office keeping the records of a finalized criminal trial the intention to apply for inspection or copying of those litigation records (affirmative)
[2] In a case where the re-appellant, in a civil case to which the re-appellant was a party, applied for a commission to send documents regarding the re-appellant's finalized criminal trial records kept by the public prosecutors' office after the criminal judgment became final, and upon the application being granted, applied to the relevant public prosecutors' office for inspection and copying by designating the documents to be certified copies among the finalized criminal trial records in order to specify the documents to be sent under the commission; the prosecutor in charge refused on the ground under Article 59-2(2)3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, namely "where disclosure of the litigation records is likely to significantly harm the honor or privacy of persons involved in the case, or the safety of their life or body or the peace of their life"; and the re-appellant applied for revocation of the prosecutor's disposition under Article 59-2(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Court held that the lower court's order dismissing the re-appellant's application for revocation was erroneous in violating Article 59-2(1) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act
【Summary of Order】
[1] Article 59-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act merely provides that "Any person may apply to the public prosecutors' office keeping the litigation records of a case in which judgment has become final for inspection or copying of the litigation records for the purpose of remedying rights, academic research, or the public interest," and imposes no restriction on the method or procedure of application; therefore, if any person has expressly and definitively indicated to the public prosecutors' office keeping the records of a finalized criminal trial the intention to apply for inspection or copying of those litigation records, it may be regarded as a lawful application.
[2] In a case where the re-appellant, in a civil case to which the re-appellant was a party, applied for a commission to send documents regarding the re-appellant's finalized criminal trial records kept by the public prosecutors' office after the criminal judgment became final, and upon the application being granted, applied to the relevant public prosecutors' office for inspection and copying by designating the documents to be certified copies among the finalized criminal trial records in order to specify the documents to be sent under the commission; the prosecutor in charge refused on the ground under Article 59-2(2)3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, namely "where disclosure of the litigation records is likely to significantly harm the honor or privacy of persons involved in the case, or the safety of their life or body or the peace of their life"; and the re-appellant applied for revocation of the prosecutor's disposition under Article 59-2(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Court held as follows: the re-appellant, in the course of pleadings in the civil case, applied for a commission to send documents regarding the finalized criminal trial records for the purpose of remedying rights, such as submitting evidence, and upon the application being granted, applied for inspection and copying to the relevant public prosecutors' office keeping the finalized criminal trial records by specifying the documents to be sent; accordingly, the re-appellant may be regarded as having expressly and definitively indicated to the public prosecutors' office keeping the finalized criminal trial records the intention to apply for inspection and copying of those litigation records, and thus made a lawful application under Article 59-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; nevertheless, the lower court's order dismissing the re-appellant's application for revocation on the contrary ground that the re-appellant had not applied to the public prosecutors' office keeping the finalized criminal trial records for inspection and copying of those litigation records under Article 59-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was erroneous in violating Article 59-2(1) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Article 59-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [2] Article 59-2(1), (2)3, and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court Order 2008Mo481, March 30, 2012
Supreme Court Order 2023Mo1221, June 27, 2023
(Source: Supreme Court Order 2026Mo1971, August 12, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail