A court has ruled that a legal defense team must pay 3 million won to their client for neglecting their duties, such as failing to submit letters of apology and petitions and making a late court deposit.

The Seoul Central District Court's Civil Appeals Division 11-2 ruled partly in favor of the plaintiff in an appeal filed by a client, identified as A, against their criminal defense team for damages.

Client A, who was indicted in 2023 for violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, was sentenced to prison in the first trial the following year.

Client A appealed the verdict, and that was when the incident occurred.

At the time, the defense team agreed with client A to pursue a settlement with the victim, and decided to make a court deposit if the settlement fell through.

The defense team also shared a plan to submit an opinion document to the court containing client A's letter of reflection and a petition from client A's father.

However, the defense team failed to submit the letters of apology and reflection to the court by the sentencing date on October 2 of that year, and paid the court deposit just two days before the sentencing.

Client A ultimately had the appeal dismissed in the second trial.

The reasoning for the ruling at the time noted as an unfavorable circumstance that "compensation for the victim, such as reaching a settlement with the victim, had not been achieved up to the appellate court proceedings."

Consequently, client A filed for damages, claiming that the unfaithful handling of duties by the retained defense team deprived them of the opportunity to receive a fair trial.

The first-trial court for the damages lawsuit dismissed client A's claim, stating that it was difficult to view the defense team as having failed to exercise ordinary care in conducting the lawsuit compared to an average lawyer.

However, the second-trial court reached a different conclusion.

It ruled that the defense team neglected their duty of due care as legal counsel, causing client A to lose the opportunity to receive a substantive evaluation regarding sentencing.

The court recognized that client A suffered psychological distress due to the defense team's breach of contract.

The court determined that the defendants were at fault, noting that they appeared to have delayed the deposit based on the vague expectation that the court would postpone the sentencing date.

Reported by Kim Jiuk | Video by Na Hong-hee | Graphics by Lee Jung-joo | Produced by SBS Digital News