범칙금 통고처분과 공소사실의 동일성

Abstract

The Supreme Court said, “Payment of fines with disposition of notification has the same effect as a final judgment, and has the effect of severance of judgment on acts that are acknowledged to be identical to the criminal act. Even if the offender fails to comply with the notification disposition or an error in the notification disposition is discovered, the proceeding of the procedure may be prevented or There is a succession of precedents to the effect that there is no turning back.” However, the legal nature and purpose of a fine notification disposition are different from criminal procedures involving criminal prosecution and trial, and the way in which they are implemented is also different. A final judgment must be a concept that presupposes the filing of an indictment by a prosecutor and a trial by a judge. According to the position of the Supreme Court, the person who determines the payment of fines is not a judge, there is no system such as change of indictment, there is an imbalance between the act and the punishment, which runs counter to justice and fairness, and the investigative agency itself is responsible for errors in notification disposition. Many problems arise, including the fact that there is no way to correct them. Therefore, instead of going through the trouble of combining penalty notification disposition with criminal procedures to expand or narrow the scope of the same facts of indictment depending on the case, do not link penalty notification disposition with criminal procedures from the beginning, and the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and the Misdemeanor Punishment Act are “Penalty It is sufficient to understand that ‘if you pay, you cannot be notified of a fine again for that act’.”