Omission of Lawsuit Record Delivery to Defense Counsel... Supreme Court Rules "Violation of Litigation Procedure"

The Supreme Court ruled that a judgment made without notifying the defense counsel of the receipt of litigation records constitutes a violation of litigation procedures and must be retried.

Supreme Court

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) overturned the original ruling in the case of Lee Wansik, a member of the Chungnam Provincial Assembly, who was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act, and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court.

Assemblyman Lee was prosecuted on charges of providing meals and money to voters in the electoral district ahead of the 8th nationwide simultaneous local elections in May 2022. Both the first and second trial courts sentenced him to a fine of 2 million won. Han, a supporter of Assemblyman Lee who directly delivered the cash, was fined 4 million won in both the first and second trials.

The issue in the appeal trial was whether the failure to notify the defense counsel appointed by Assemblyman Lee in the second trial of the receipt of litigation records constituted a violation of litigation procedures. On October 5 of last year, the second trial court sent a notice of receipt of litigation records to the office of the defense counsel who had represented Assemblyman Lee in the first trial. However, Assemblyman Lee appointed a different defense counsel for the second trial and submitted a power of attorney on October 10 of last year. Despite this, the second trial court proceeded with the trial and concluded the arguments after sending the summons for the first hearing to the office of the first trial defense counsel. Assemblyman Lee's appeal in the second trial was dismissed.

The Supreme Court judged that the second trial court violated litigation procedures. The Supreme Court stated, "It cannot be considered that the notice of receipt of litigation records was properly delivered to the defendant (Assemblyman Lee)," and added, "The defense counsel appointed in the original trial must also be notified of the receipt of litigation records, and the period for submitting the statement of reasons for appeal does not commence until such notification is made. Therefore, the appeal case cannot be judged without waiting for the expiration of that period." Furthermore, the court noted, "The original trial court rendered a judgment without proper notification of the receipt of litigation records, and such a judgment contains an illegality that affects the judgment due to a violation of litigation procedure laws," and found Assemblyman Lee's appeal to be valid.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Han, who was tried alongside Assemblyman Lee, stating, "There is no error in the original court's judgment that violates the rules of logic and experience."

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