Supreme Court Overturns Ruling After Lower Court Prematurely Used Public Notice for Service

The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court's prison sentence for a defendant who did not appear in court, ruling that the trial court violated regulations regarding service by public notice.

The Third Division of the Supreme Court (Justice Lee Sook-yeon presiding) overturned the original verdict in May, which had sentenced a defendant, identified as A, to one year and six months in prison for fraud, and remanded the case to the Cheongju District Court.

A was indicted on charges of defrauding victims of approximately 2.5 million won between January and March 2023 by posting fake advertisements online for cameras and wireless earphones.

The first trial court sentenced A to one year and six months in prison, noting that A had a history of similar crimes and had fled after deceiving the court by claiming a settlement would be reached soon.

The second trial court dismissed A's appeal and upheld the original judgment.

However, the Supreme Court took issue with the procedures of the first trial, ordering a retrial.

A attended the first trial date in September 2023 but failed to appear for the second trial date in October.

Although the first trial court issued an arrest warrant, A did not appear for the third trial date in December despite having received the summons.

On that day, the first trial court ordered the prosecutor to verify the address, issued a detention warrant, requested a wanted notice, and initiated measures to locate A, including commissioning a search for the defendant's whereabouts.

However, in January of the following year, a report stating that service could not be completed because A's whereabouts were unknown was filed.

The issue arose when the court decided to proceed with service by public notice in April, just over three months later.

Service by public notice is a method where the court posts the contents of legal documents on a bulletin board or in an official gazette when they cannot be delivered, deeming the documents to have been served.

Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings stipulates that if a defendant's whereabouts cannot be confirmed for six months after a report of failure of service is filed in the first trial, the trial may proceed without the defendant's statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was improper for the first trial court to decide on service by public notice in April, as the law requires waiting six months after the report of failure of service is filed, which would have allowed for service by public notice only in July.

The Supreme Court stated, "The first trial verdict contained an error where legal proceedings violated the law, affecting the judgment, and the appellate court overlooked this error in the first trial and judged the defendant's grounds for appeal based on evidence adopted and examined by the first trial court." The case was remanded to the appellate court for a new trial and judgment.

However, with the revised Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings having taken effect last month, trials can now proceed in the absence of a defendant if they have attended at least one trial date and fail to appear twice without a justifiable reason.

(Photo: Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.