형제복지원 사건 비상상고 판결 비판

Abstract

The Supreme Court dismissed extraordinary appeal on special confinement case at Brothers Home, but the reasoning and conclusion are both subject to criticism. The original judgment subject to the extraordinary appeal should be the 3rd Supreme Court judgment, which was the final judgment on the original case. However, the Supreme Court did not take this view. Furthermore, the Supreme Court avoided making its judgment on the assertion that the original judgment that the defendant’s action is justified based on the Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Rather, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Attorney General’s reasoning for extraordinary appeal, thereby judging that the violation of laws of the original judgment was due to the false premise. However, the directive that allowed the accommodation of vagrants was illegal and invalid even under the laws of the time of accommodation. Following the recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Attorney General filed the extraordinary appeal after several decades, with repenting tears. However, the Supreme Court misunderstood the purpose of an extraordinary appeal, and went against precedents of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only argued a biased and wrong stance as a judging body of extraordinary appeals. Wrongful and unjust Past History Judgments should be corrected through extraordinary appeals.