Supreme Court: "Trial must be retried as mother received summons but absence ruling was made..."

Court: "To rule without testimony, efforts to locate the defendant must have been made"

If a summons demanding court attendance was delivered to a cohabiting family member, the Supreme Court has ruled that making a judgment without the defendant's statement due to absence from the trial is illegal.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) announced on the 26th that it overturned the original ruling that sentenced Mr. A, who was indicted on fraud charges, to a fine of 1.5 million won, and remanded the case to the Gwangju District Court.

Mr. A was sentenced to 2 million won in the first trial for two instances of fraud in 2020. Mr. A was detained for another case, and after filing an appeal with the court, he was released upon completion of his sentence.

The appellate court sent the summons to Mr. A’s parents’ address, but it was not delivered due to absence at the delivery location. Attempts to contact Mr. A via the phone number listed on the legal documents also failed. Later, the summons for the second trial date was delivered to his mother, Ms. B, but Mr. A did not appear in court.

Accordingly, the second trial court summoned Mr. A through public notice delivery, which involves posting the delivery content on bulletin boards or official gazettes when legal documents cannot be delivered. However, Mr. A did not attend the trial, and the court proceeded with the trial in his absence, sentencing him to a fine of 1.5 million won.

Upon belatedly learning of the sentence, Mr. A filed a petition to restore his right to appeal, claiming the delivery was illegal. The second trial court granted the restoration, stating that "the defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period due to reasons beyond his responsibility."

The Supreme Court also judged that the appellate court should have taken measures to ascertain the defendant’s whereabouts. The court pointed out, "Since the defendant’s mother received the summons for the second trial, to make a judgment without the defendant’s statement, the court should have set another trial date and delivered the summons to the defendant again," and added, "Before deciding on public notice delivery, the court should have called other contact numbers listed in the formal trial request to ascertain the defendant’s whereabouts."

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