Supreme Court Restrains Abuse of Public Notice Service... Orders Retrial for Voice Phishing Accomplice

Defendant Found Guilty for Operating Voice Phishing Relay Station
Failed to Appear After Appeal; Released on Suspension of Detention
Did Not Return; Police Reported "Whereabouts Unknown at Previous Address"
Lower Court Proceeded with Public

Yonhap News Agency

In a case where a defendant involved in a voice phishing scheme failed to appear at the appellate trial and the court immediately proceeded with a public notice service, dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's decision, stating that efforts should have been made to locate the defendant using addresses and contact information before resorting to public notice service.

Public notice service is a system where, if documents cannot be delivered to a party, the notice is posted in an official gazette or similar publication for a certain period and is deemed to have been served.

According to the legal community on December 8, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Noh Taeak) overturned and remanded the appellate decision, finding fault with the lower court for proceeding with public notice service without attempting to locate the defendant, even though other residential addresses and phone numbers of the defendant and their family were available in the records.

The defendant, in April 2023, assisted overseas accomplices in managing and operating relay stations so that calls to domestic victims would appear with a '010' number, thereby facilitating a phone-based financial fraud. The accomplices impersonated prosecutors and defrauded four victims of a total of 201.52 million won in cash and gift certificates. The defendant was indicted for conspiring to commit property fraud and was sentenced to two years and six months in prison in the first trial.

However, the defendant did not appear at the first appellate hearing on November 22, 2023. After being released on a suspension of detention, the defendant failed to return to prison when the suspension period ended and went into hiding. The appellate court, after receiving a report from the police that the defendant could not be located at the registered address, served the summons by public notice on January 15, 2025. When the defendant failed to appear at the second and third hearings as well, the court dismissed the appeal without the defendant's statement in accordance with Article 365, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the case records contained not only the original address but also other residential addresses and phone numbers of the defendant and their family. Nevertheless, the appellate court did not attempt to serve documents to these addresses or make any phone calls to confirm the defendant's whereabouts.

The Supreme Court took issue with this. The court stated, "Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows public notice service only when the defendant's residence, office, or current location is unknown," and added, "If there are contactable phone numbers in the records, efforts must be made to confirm the place of service or locate the defendant using this information." The court further stated, "Proceeding directly to public notice service and rendering a judgment without the defendant's statement, without such efforts, constitutes a procedural violation that affected the judgment." Accordingly, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's decision to dismiss the appeal and remanded the case.

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