The Principle of Appeals on Points of Law

Regarding the structure of criminal appeals, the judicial precedent establishes the principle of ‘appeals on points of fact,’ which stipulates that the court of the second instance continues to review the facts. Consequently, the court of the second instance employs an operational system to fist review the lower court’s decision and subsequently reverse it. However, even under the current criminal procedure law, the second-instance court can enhance its role by adopting a system of ‘appeals on points of law,’ focusing on legal issues rather than factual ones. In this context, the court should establish a dual second-instance court system that separates reversing phase from the ruling phase, in line with the ‘reverse first, rule second’ approach. This method can strengthen the principle of court-centered trials, improve oversight of the first-instance court, and reduce the caseload of the Supreme Court. The court structure based on the principle of ‘appeals on points of law’ should be organized as follows: First, during the reversing phase, the second-instance court should review the grounds for appeal first and then issue a ruling. This means that, in principle, new evidence cannot be submitted, amendments to the indictment will not be permitted, and when the court accepts the grounds of appeal at the end of the reversing phase, it will reverse the decision and announce the commencement of the ruling phase. Second, the second-instance court reviews the case while considering the grounds of reversal. During the ruling phase, new evidence may be submitted, amendments to the indictment will be allowed, and the court will either start the case over or reevaluate the evidence presented at the trial court or newly submitted at the appellate court.