Judgment Without Defendant's Examination... Supreme Court Orders Retrial

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that a retrial is necessary, stating that delivering a verdict without accepting the defense counsel's request to examine the defendant violates the Criminal Procedure Act.

On the 13th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice No Jeonghee) overturned the original sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and remanded the case to the Jeonju District Court.

Mr. A, who operated an automobile parts company, was prosecuted for falsifying and disclosing financial statements by violating accounting standards. Investigations revealed that Mr. A ordered the manipulation of financial statements due to concerns over operational disruptions such as loan extension refusals after a decrease in delivery volume led to reduced profits.

The first trial recognized Mr. A's charges and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment. Mr. A appealed, but the second trial court rejected the appeal.

However, Mr. A's defense counsel cited as grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court that the second trial court did not accept the request to examine the defendant and concluded the trial. Articles 370 and 296-2, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act guarantee the defense counsel's right to examine the defendant. While defendant examination may be limited if it overlaps with the first trial or is unnecessary for judging the appeal reasons, the Act's principle is that essential rights must not be infringed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court judged that the second trial court's refusal to accept the defense counsel's request to examine the defendant was potentially illegal and overturned and remanded the original judgment. The court stated, "When the defense counsel expresses the intention to examine the defendant, the court must take measures to allow the examination," and "Refusing to permit the defense counsel to examine the defendant despite such expression constitutes a violation of procedural law."

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