Supreme Court: "The lower court that convicted without contacting the defendant and used public notification must retry the case"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court has ruled to "retry the case" against the lower court's decision to conclude the trial by public notice service, claiming that it did not even attempt to contact the defendant by phone and could not reach him.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Cho Hee-dae) announced on the 5th that it overturned the lower court's ruling sentencing Kang Mo (38), who was indicted for violating the Road Traffic Act and other charges, to six months in prison, and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.

In September 2016, Kang caused an accident by colliding with a vehicle waiting at a signal while driving without a license with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.108%. He was prosecuted for this charge. Kang was supposed to appear in court, but communication with the court was poor. Accordingly, the first trial court, based on the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, conducted evidence investigation and arguments without Kang's appearance and sentenced him to 10 months in prison. After the appeal period passed, the sentence became final.

Kang later learned that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in the trial and filed a petition to restore his right to appeal, which the court accepted, leading to an appellate trial. However, Kang's communication issues continued to complicate the trial during the appeal. Kang was contacted once during the appeal. He was using a different phone number than the one the court had on record. He explained, "I was on board a ship, so I could not receive related documents at my registered address," and provided the updated phone number and residence.

However, related documents were not delivered to the updated address either, so the court proceeded with public notice service and sentenced Kang to six months in prison. Public notice service is a system where, when the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, documents are posted in official gazettes, and the content is deemed to have been delivered. Kang claimed he learned of the appellate court's ruling late and again petitioned to restore his right to appeal, leading the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not attempt to contact Kang's updated mobile phone number before deciding on public notice service, stating, "Before deciding on public notice service, they should have tried to contact the defendant at the updated mobile phone number." It further criticized, "The lower court concluded that the defendant's residence, office, and current location were unknown without taking such measures, proceeded with public notice service, and ruled without the defendant's statement."

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