Supreme Court: Defendant Unaware of Trial... Retrial Required for Guilty Verdict in Absence

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that there are grounds for a retrial for a defendant who was unaware that a trial had taken place and only belatedly learned of the guilty verdict.

On the 21st, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) announced that it overturned the original sentence of 1 year and 2 months imprisonment handed down to Mr. A, who was charged with violating the Game Industry Promotion Act and forgery of official documents, and remanded the case to the Seoul Southern District Court.

Mr. A was prosecuted for illegally operating a 'Bada Iyagi' game arcade by installing 35 game machines in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul in 2010. He was also charged with presenting another person's driver's license to police officers requesting to see his license on a road in Bucheon-si, Gyeonggi-do around 2016.

The first trial court sentenced him to 1 year and 2 months imprisonment, stating that "he provided unclassified game content to customers, engaged in exchanging the results obtained from game use for money as a business, and forged official documents."

However, the trial was conducted without Mr. A's presence. The court attempted to notify him to appear but was unable to contact him, and proceeded with the trial by public notice delivery (a system where the court publishes the notice in the court gazette and considers it delivered to the party). The second trial court also held the trial without Mr. A and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal.

Mr. A belatedly learned of this and filed a petition to restore his right to appeal, stating that "he did not receive the indictment and other documents, was unaware that the trial had taken place, and only learned of the verdict later," although the period to file an appeal had passed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the case to be re-examined and judged. The court pointed out, "The defendant was unable to attend the first and second trial procedures due to reasons beyond his responsibility," and "the original judgment contains grounds for a retrial as stipulated in Article 23-2, Paragraph 1 of the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation."

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