[Invest&Law] Preventing Sneaky 'Surprise Deposits'

Caution Against Last-Minute Deposits Aimed at Sentence Reduction
Mandatory Hearing of Victim's Opinion Begins on the 17th

To prevent cases where defendants receive reduced sentences through a last-minute "surprise deposit" just before sentencing in criminal trials, an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act requiring the victim's opinion to be heard during deposits has been in effect since the 17th. Legal circles say that the new procedure to hear the victim's opinion on deposits in criminal trials expands the victim's right to participate. However, there are concerns that there may be little change since this process can be skipped in special circumstances through an exception clause.

Article 294-5 (Deposit of Money and Hearing of Opinions of Victims, etc.)

Last May, the Ministry of Justice amended the Deposit Act and the Criminal Procedure Act to include these provisions. The revised Article 294-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that when a defendant deposits money necessary for the restoration of the victim's rights, the court must hear the opinion of the victim or their legal representative (including spouse, direct relatives, or siblings if the victim is deceased) before pronouncing the judgment. However, if it is difficult to hear the opinion, the process may be omitted if special circumstances defined by Supreme Court regulations apply. The Supreme Court regulation (Criminal Procedure Rules Article 134-13), which was announced for public comment in November last year, requires that when hearing opinions, the prosecutor or the victim's lawyer must be given or sent an opinion inquiry form to collect the victim's opinion through submission of the form or by written, telephone, email, fax, or mobile text message methods. However, this procedure can be omitted in cases such as △when the victim or others have already expressed their views on the defendant's deposit in the case and reconfirmation is unnecessary △when hearing opinions would significantly delay the trial process △when it is difficult to hear opinions due to inability to verify the personal details of the deposit recipient (victim) △or when, considering the circumstances of the hearing or procedural progress, it is difficult to hear the victim's opinion.

Legal professionals have high expectations that the enforcement of this amendment will expand the victim's right to participate in trials. There are also opinions that it can prevent sentence reductions through so-called "surprise deposits" and prevent "eat-and-run deposits" that are reclaimed after sentencing.

A lawyer in Seocho-dong said, "If the obligation to hear the victim's opinion is established, it will be possible to prevent surprise deposits or eat-and-run deposits, which have been issues related to deposits, and victim protection will be strengthened."

On the other hand, concerns about trial delays remain, and there are voices that the court may omit this procedure or treat it as a mere formality through exception clauses. Another lawyer said, "Although the revised provision imposes a confirmation duty on the court, it grants discretion through exception clauses, so depending on the situation, this process can be omitted, and there may be little difference from before."

Han Suhyun, Legal Times Reporter

※This article was written based on content provided by Legal Times.

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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