🔎 What Happened

A Korean legal-tech AI analyzed an appellate criminal judgment and identified a procedural error the appellate court had overlooked. The defense adopted the AI-flagged issue as a ground of appeal, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case.

This marks the Supreme Court’s first explicit ruling on whether a court may resolve a post-sentencing concurrence (사후적 경합범) through judgment correction rather than reversal and resentencing.


—

⚖️ Case Background

The defendant committed multiple drunk-driving offenses over time.

While one case was pending on appeal, another drunk-driving conviction became final.

This created a post-sentencing concurrence relationship: crimes committed before a prior judgment became final, but sentenced afterward.

The trial court imposed a custodial sentence considering sentencing equity.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and attempted to address the new concurrence issue via 판결 경정 (judgment correction).


—

❗ The Legal Problem

Judgment correction is permitted only for obvious clerical or calculation errors.

The question:

> When a post-sentencing concurrence arises mid-appeal, can the appellate court fix the judgment by “correction,” or must it reverse ex officio and resentence?


—

🤖 Role of AI (as reported)

The AI:

Detected that a post-sentencing concurrence had crystallized after the trial judgment.

Flagged that handling it through judgment correction exceeded procedural limits.

Suggested an appeal strategy arguing misunderstanding of law affecting the judgment.

Predicted a high likelihood of reversal due to procedural defect, regardless of whether the final sentence might remain unchanged.


—

🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Holding

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that:

Adding a post-sentencing concurrence and its legal consequences through judgment correction amounts to a substantive modification of the original judgment.

Such modification exceeds the permissible scope of correction.

Even if the resentencing result could be identical, the court must follow the proper procedural route, including correct concurrence handling and resentencing.

Failure to do so constitutes a legal error affecting the judgment.


—

📌 Why This Matters

Procedure over outcome: Courts must follow the correct process even if the sentence would not change.

Clear boundary set: Appellate courts cannot use judgment correction to bypass required resentencing steps in post-sentencing concurrence cases.

Legal-tech signal: Demonstrates a concrete use case where AI functions as a procedural issue-spotter, not a decision-maker.

Precedential value: First Supreme Court guidance on this precise procedural question.


—

🧾 Takeaway

> In post-sentencing concurrence cases, shortcuts are not allowed.
Correction is not a substitute for reversal and resentencing.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/214742