"The First Trial Without Court-Appointed Counsel and the Second Trial That Dismissed the Appeal Were Both Wrong"... Supreme Court Overturns Ruling, Remands Case for Procedural Violations

Disturbance and assault charges at government complex
Case involving defendant in his 70s charged with obstructing official duties overturned and remanded
Procedural violation in case requiring mandatory counsel
First-trial ruling invalid
Appellate court should have overturned the ruling and issued a new decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that a lower court ruling is invalid because the trial proceeded without defense counsel in a case requiring mandatory appointment of court-appointed counsel, even though the defendant was 70 or older. It also ruled that the appellate court acted unlawfully by upholding the ruling without overturning it.

According to legal sources on October 30, the Supreme Court, with Justice Park Young-jae presiding, overturned the original ruling sentencing A (71) to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, in an appeal case involving charges of obstructing the execution of official duties. The court remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

A was indicted on charges of shouting and causing a disturbance at the public service office in the Government Complex Seoul at around 1 p.m. on June 26, 2025, saying, "I need to meet the prime minister, the deputy prime minister for social affairs, and the chairman of the Financial Services Commission. They owe me money." At the time, A blocked a gate reserved for young children and people with disabilities and shouted at B, a security officer at the government complex who tried to stop him, saying, "What a terrible person." A also pushed B several times around the shoulders with both hands, obstructing the lawful performance of official duties.

In November 2025, the first-trial court found A guilty and sentenced him to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. It also ordered two years of probation and 80 hours of community service. A argued that the security officer's actions in restraining him constituted sexual harassment and sexual assault and therefore were not lawful official duties, but the court rejected the argument. However, A, who was 70 at the time of the first-trial proceedings, had not retained private counsel. The court also concluded the proceedings and delivered its ruling without appointing court-appointed counsel.

At the subsequent appeal trial, proceedings were held with court-appointed counsel in place. However, in July 2026, the appellate court rejected A's arguments that his actions were justified, that he had acted in self-defense, and that the sentence was excessive. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-trial ruling.

The Supreme Court, however, found on its own initiative that serious violations of law had occurred in the proceedings at both the first-trial and appellate stages. Article 33, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the current Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that when a defendant is 70 or older and has no defense counsel, the court must appoint court-appointed counsel on its own initiative. Article 282 of the same Act expressly prohibits a trial from proceeding without defense counsel in cases requiring mandatory representation.

The Supreme Court ruled, "This case is one requiring mandatory defense counsel," and "the proceedings in the first trial were flawed because they violated the Criminal Procedure Act." It continued, "The appellate court should have overturned the unlawful first-trial ruling and issued a new ruling, but instead upheld it by dismissing the defendant's appeal," finding that "the appellate proceedings also violated the Criminal Procedure Act, and that this error affected the ruling."

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