Supreme Court: "Holding Trial in Absentia via Public Notification Despite Available Family Contact Is Unlawful"...Case Remanded

Moved After Fine in First Trial
Summons Not Delivered, Leading to Public Notification Service
Supreme Court: "Procedural Violation by Denying Opportunity to Appear"

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful to proceed with a trial in absentia through public notification service without checking the contact information of the defendant or their family, even when such details are recorded in the case file. Public notification service is a legal procedure in which litigation documents are deemed to have been delivered by publishing them in official gazettes or similar outlets when actual delivery is not possible.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News

According to the legal community on June 16, the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Lee Sukyeon) recently overturned a lower court ruling that had fined defendant A 5 million won for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (including confidentiality, etc.), and remanded the case to the Gwangju District Court.

In the first trial, A was sentenced to a fine in two separate cases and filed an appeal. During the appellate proceedings, the court consolidated the cases and sent a summons to the address listed in the indictment. However, the delivery failed due to the recipient’s absence. When the police were also unable to locate A, the court decided to proceed with public notification service for A. After A failed to appear in court twice in a row, the court conducted the trial in absentia and imposed a 5 million won fine.

The issue was that there were available means of contact in the case records. The first trial records, including the suspect interrogation report, clearly listed another mobile phone number for A and a number for A’s elder brother. Nevertheless, the appellate court did not attempt to contact any of these numbers and simply regarded A as untraceable.

The Supreme Court found the appellate court’s trial procedure to be unlawful. The court stated, "Even if the defendant did not notify the court of a change of address, the appellate court should have called the contact numbers of the defendant and their family, as indicated in the records, to ascertain their whereabouts before deciding on public notification service."

The court further explained, "Nevertheless, the court proceeded with public notification service and rendered a judgment in the absence of the defendant, simply concluding that the whereabouts could not be determined. This deprived the defendant of an opportunity to appear and constitutes a violation of procedural law," providing the grounds for remand and retrial.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.