Supreme Court Orders Retrial for Defendant in 70s Convicted Without Legal Representation

The Supreme Court has ruled that a trial conducted against a defendant over the age of 70 without appointing a state-appointed defense counsel is unlawful and requires a new trial.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Park Young-jae) recently overturned the lower court's ruling that found a 71-year-old defendant, surnamed A, guilty of obstruction of official duties, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

A was indicted on charges of causing a disturbance in June of last year at the civil petition office of the Government Complex-Seoul, demanding to meet the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister for Social Affairs, and the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission because money was owed to him, and shoving a security guard who tried to stop him, thereby obstructing the protection of the government complex.

The first and second instance courts sentenced A to eight months in prison suspended for two years.

However, taking issue with the first-instance trial proceedings conducted without legal representation, the Supreme Court sent the case back without making a judgment on the guilt or innocence regarding the charge of obstruction of official duties.

Under the Criminal Procedure Act, if a defendant is 70 years of age or older and has no defense counsel, the court must ex officio appoint a defense counsel.

A court session cannot be held without a defense counsel.

Although A was 70 years or older at the time of the first trial, the court proceeded with the trial without appointing a state-appointed defense counsel, concluded the proceedings, and sentenced A to-guilty.

The appellate court also failed to correct this and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court pointed out, "The first-instance trial proceedings violated the Criminal Procedure Act," adding, "The lower court should have overturned the unlawful first-instance judgment and rendered a new judgment, but by dismissing the appeal, the lower court's proceedings also violated the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the judgment."

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