Sangcheol’s Legal Journal : YouLaw Insights

🔍 Supreme Court Precedents: No Mention of Unconstitutionality in Immediate Appeals In May 2023, the South Korean Supreme Court’s Second Division reviewed a case concerning a re-appeal filed by prosecutors against the Daejeon District Court’s decision to grant a release request. The Supreme Court ruled, “Upon reviewing the reasons for the re-appeal, we find no violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or regulations.” In other words, even though the prosecution had filed an immediate appeal after releasing the defendant, the Supreme Court did not raise any constitutional concerns regarding this practice. This case originated in November 2022 when the Daejeon District Court, on its own authority, ordered a release. The prosecution complied by releasing the defendant but simultaneously filed an immediate appeal. This precedent contradicts the current prosecution’s argument that “immediate appeal after release is unconstitutional.” ⚖️ Prosecution’s Argument vs. Supreme Court Pr...

  One of the biggest political controversies in South Korea today is whether Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung’s criminal trial can continue if he is elected president. Article 84 of the Constitution states: “The President shall not be subject to criminal prosecution during his tenure, except in cases of insurrection or treason.” This raises the question: Will ongoing criminal trials be suspended if a defendant becomes president? The legal community is divided on this issue. Some argue that a president’s criminal trial should automatically be suspended, while others contend that the trial must continue. This is not merely a matter of legal interpretation but a fundamental issue that could impact South Korea’s judicial system and presidential authority. This article examines the legal debate surrounding Article 84, the associated legal and practical challenges, and possible future scenarios. Legal Issues and Expert Opinions 1. The Meaning and Interpretation of Article 8...

Legal Nature of Surety Insurance: Supreme Court’s Perspective Surety insurance plays a crucial role in ensuring contract fulfillment in various industries. Particularly in the construction sector and large-scale contracts, it acts as a key legal mechanism to maintain trust between parties. However, surety insurance differs from general indemnity insurance and exhibits characteristics similar to a surety contract. Existing Supreme Court Precedents on Surety Insurance Surety insurance is fundamentally a type of indemnity insurance, but it closely resembles a surety contract in essence. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted surety insurance as follows: - Surety insurance covers the loss incurred by the insured (creditor) due to the non-performance of the policyholder (debtor). - Although formally structured as an insurance contract, it effectively functions as a surety. - The 2014 amendment to the Commercial Act (Articles 726-...