Note: 
This summary constitutes no part of the Judgment but is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court only for the readers'  reference.
Original paragraph numbers that the summarized texts correspond to are put into lenticular brackets after each paragraph. 

Headnotes

    In this Judgment, the TCC opted for an interpretation in accordance with the Constitution and upheld the constitutionality of Article 420, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The TCC held that the disputed provision is constitutional so long as the text "it is determined that the convicted person should have been … remitted the criminal sanction"^[1] in the provision be interpreted as including situations where, subject to the applicable statutes, the criminal sanction imposed on the convicted person "should have been remitted or reduced."

Background Note

    Petitioners I, II, and III were charged with drug dealing in three individual cases involving narcotics. They all confessed the names of their suppliers to the police during interrogation but were all convicted before their suppliers were apprehended. Under Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act, offenders of drug dealing who confess the source of the narcotics that leads to the arrest of the principal offender or accomplices shall enjoy the remission or reduction of the punishment.^[2] The petitioner's drug suppliers were later arrested and convicted, making the petitioners believe that they were eligible for retrial under Article 420, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the disputed provision), which stipulates the grounds for a retrial due to the discovery of new facts or evidence. In these cases, the new fact is that their suppliers were apprehended after their guilty verdict is finalized, which the courts did not have the chance to take into consideration. Their cases were all dismissed by the Supreme Court on final appeal because the disputed provision strictly stipulated, word for word, the ground for a retrial is "the convicted person should have been … remitted the criminal sanction," which should be interpreted as concerning only the cases applicable with criminal laws containing a statutory remission clause rather than those with a "remission or reduction" clause.
    The petitioners each lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing that the disputed provision violated the principle of equality enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution. Their cases were consolidated and later decided on February 10, 2023. 

Summary of the Judgment 

Holding

1. Article 420, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that a motion for retrial may be filed after a guilty ruling is finalized "due to a discovery of new facts or new evidence that is sufficient, either by itself or when combined with previous evidence, it is determined that the convicted person should have been … remitted the criminal sanction …." The stated provision conforms to Article 7 of the Constitution so long as the grounds for retrial of "it is determined that the convicted person should have been… remitted the criminal sanction" be interpreted as including situations where, subject to the applicable statutes, the criminal sanction imposed on the convicted person "should have been remitted or reduced," in addition to situations where there are statutes applicable strictly on the "remission of criminal sanction."
2. Petitioners may, per this Judgment and under the pertaining legal procedure, motion for retrial with the court of competent jurisdiction within the peremptory period of thirty days after the service of this Judgment. 

Reasoning

1. The texts "should have been remitted the criminal sanction" and "should have been remitted or reduced the criminal sanction" shall be construed as emphasizing the court's obligation to reduce or relieve punishment under criminal law. Both texts contain the probability and the legal grounds for the court to remit criminal sanction.【19】
2. After a guilty ruling finalizes, once there is a discovery of a significant error of fact that is sufficient to remit the convicted person's criminal sanction, the convicted person may motion for retrial under Article 420, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the "disputed provision") to receive effective remedy.【20】
3. One of the grounds for error-of-fact retrials is limited by the disputed provision to cases where the convicted persons are punishable by criminal laws with a statutory clause for remitting criminal sanctions. However, this provision shall be construed as also including criminal laws containing a statutory clause for "remission or reduction" based on the following reasons:【21】
       Firstly, under textual interpretation, the courts could remit criminal sanction following either the clauses "should have been remitted the criminal sanction" and "should have been remitted or reduced the criminal sanction" in criminal laws. Therefore, the ground for retrial of "it is determined that the convicted person should have been… remitted the criminal sanction" in the disputed provision shall include the cases applicable to the criminal laws containing the statutory clause of "should be remitted or reduced the criminal sanction" (a "remission or reduction clause"), in addition to those containing only the clause of "should be remitted the criminal sanction." (a "remission clause")【23】
       Secondly, under teleological interpretation, the legislators listed "(determined that the convicted person) should have been acquitted," "exempt-from-prosecution," and "remitted the criminal sanction" as elements of grounds for error-of-fact retrial under the common concern that the state has no right to punish the convicted in these cases, and that the convicted persons should not have been subjected to criminal sanction. In these cases, the pursuit for substantial justice outweighs the objective of legal stability. Under this purpose (the pursuit for substantial justice), the text "it is determined that the convicted person should be… remitted the criminal sanction" of the disputed provision shall be interpreted as including cases where criminal laws containing a "remission or reduction" clause are applicable, because the courts may still hand down a remission ruling applying criminal laws with a "remission or reduction" clause.【25】
       Thirdly, under historical interpretation, considering that the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Feb. 4, 2015) has omitted the word "definite" from the text "a discovery of definite new facts" in the disputed provision so that simply "a discovery of new facts or new evidence" will suffice for retrial in certain cases, the purpose is to lower the standard for retrial to avoid the miscarriage of justice. Courts may deliver remission ruling on cases applying criminal laws with a "remission or reduction" clause. The defendants of these cases, the same as those that shall have been remitted the criminal sanction, have the need for effective remedies to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the retrial ground of "it is determined that the convicted person should have been… remitted the criminal sanction" in the disputed provision shall be interpreted as including those "should have been remitted or reduced the criminal sanction" under applicable criminal laws.【27】
       Lastly, viewing from the review procedure of grounds for retrial, the purpose of this procedure is to determine if the convicted person's case is eligible for retrial rather than on the merits and verdict of the case. Whether the final result is to remit the criminal sanctions, depends on the court's evaluation of the evidence after finding grounds for retrial and the initiation of the retrial. Convicted persons with cases that may apply criminal laws containing a statutory clause for "remission or reduction" have an opportunity of their crimes remitted. For this reason, they have the need to initiate retrial procedures to be protected by the principle of proportionality in punishment under the Constitution. Hence, what the disputed provision means by "it is determined that the convicted person should have been… remitted the criminal sanction" shall include situations where the convicted person should be "remitted or reduced the criminal sanction."【29】
4. In conclusion, objectively speaking, the courts have the probability of remitting sanctions in both of the following situations: applying criminal law provisions containing a clause that the convicted person "should be remitted the criminal sanction" or applying those containing a "should be remitted or reduced the criminal sanction" clause. Under the principle of equality and equal treatment enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution, the grounds for a retrial of "the convicted person should have been… remitted the criminal sanction" in the disputed provision shall be interpreted as including situations where, subject to the applicable statutes, the criminal sanction imposed on the convicted person "should have been remitted or reduced,” in addition to situations where there are statutes applicable strictly on the “remission of criminal sanction."【30】

[1] Article 420, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "6. Due to a discovery of new facts or new evidence that is sufficient, either by itself or when combined with previous evidence, it is determined that the convicted person should have been acquitted, exempted-from-prosecution, remitted the imposed criminal sanction, or sentenced in line with an offense less serious than the one of the original judgment."(emphasis added by the translator of the summary to indicate adjustment) This translated text is adjusted from the official translated text for better understanding of this Judgment. 

[2] Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Narcotic Hazard Prevention Act: "Offenders of the crimes as stipulated in Article 4 to Article 8, or Article 10, or Article 11, who confess the source of the narcotics that leads to the arrest of the principal offender or accomplices, shall receive reduced, or be relieved of, punishments."