"Unaware of Trial Date, No-Show"... Supreme Court Remands Case of Man Who Broke into Ex-Girlfriend's Apartment

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A man who was convicted in the first and second trials for breaking into his ex-girlfriend's apartment will face a retrial. The Supreme Court ruled that there are grounds for a retrial because he, who did not receive the indictment, later learned that a guilty verdict was rendered in his absence and requested the restoration of his right to appeal.

On the 23rd, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dongwon) announced that it overturned the original sentence of 8 months imprisonment in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with assault and trespassing, and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court.

In 2019, Mr. A was prosecuted for trespassing after visiting his ex-girlfriend Ms. B's apartment late at night, wandering around the front of her house, and hiding on the stairs. He was also charged with assault causing injuries requiring three weeks of treatment after he was caught by Mr. C, who came to the scene upon Ms. B's contact, and assaulted him while fleeing, saying, "Who do you think you are to interfere?" At the time, Ms. B had requested police protection due to feeling threatened by Mr. A's behavior.

The first trial sentenced Mr. A to 8 months imprisonment. The court stated, "Despite multiple warnings from the police following Ms. B's request for protection, the defendant repeatedly committed the same offenses, causing Ms. B extreme anxiety and stress," and "Considering the settlement with Mr. C, as well as the defendant's age, character, intelligence, environment, and relationship with the victims, the sentence is determined."

However, the trial proceeded without Mr. A's presence. Although Mr. A did not receive a formal summons from the court, he was informed of the trial through his mother but continued to avoid the summons by instructing her not to accept any documents from the court.

Eventually, as the court could not contact Mr. A, it proceeded with the trial by public notice of summons (a system where the contents are published in the court gazette and deemed delivered to the party). The second trial court also held the trial in Mr. A's absence, dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, and upheld the sentence.

Mr. A later learned of this and, after the deadline for filing an appeal had passed, requested restoration of his right to appeal, claiming he was unaware of the trial because he did not receive the indictment or other documents and only learned of the verdict afterward.

The Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court pointed out, "The defendant was unable to attend the first and second trial proceedings due to reasons beyond his responsibility," and "The original judgment falls under the grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 23-2, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Litigation."

Article 23-2, Paragraph 1 of the current Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Litigation states, "If a defendant who has been convicted and whose verdict has been finalized was unable to attend the trial proceedings due to reasons beyond their responsibility, they may request a retrial within 14 days from the day they become aware of the fact that the verdict was rendered (or from the day the reason preventing the retrial request is removed, if they were unable to request a retrial due to such reasons)."

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