On the 27th, the Constitutional Court ruled that even if a Korean suspect is prosecuted and punished domestically for charges different from those applied during extradition from abroad, it does not violate the Constitution.
This decision pertains to the constitutional petition filed by Mr. A, who claimed that the 'extradition treaty between Korea and Thailand' is unconstitutional. Mr. A fled to Thailand while facing charges of robbery causing injury in Korea. He was later detained in Thailand on charges of using a counterfeit passport and was extradited to our country in 2013. This was in accordance with the Korea-Thailand extradition treaty.
In 2017, Mr. A was sentenced to life in prison for the charge of robbery causing injury. He argued that 'returning him based on charges of using a counterfeit passport while punishing him for robbery causing injury is contrary to the law,' and filed a constitutional petition. He added, 'If I am to go through judicial procedures for different charges, my opinion should have been sought.'
The Korea-Thailand extradition treaty includes a provision stating that 'a person extradited under the treaty cannot be detained, prosecuted, or tried for crimes other than those for which the extradition is permitted.' However, it also has an exception clause that allows prosecution for crimes other than those permitted for extradition if the requesting country submits a consent request and the requested country agrees.
On that day, the Constitutional Court stated, 'If, as claimed by Mr. A, the extraditing country must inform the suspect of the consent request each time and allow an opportunity for their opinion, it would take relatively long, potentially creating a gap in punishment for additional crimes during that time.' The court noted, 'It is difficult to view the relevant provision as violating the principle of due process under the Constitution.' All seven participating Constitutional Court Justices agreed on this decision.