“It Hurts,” “I’m Busy,” “I’m Overseas”… No More ‘No-Shows’ Allowed

Published 14 May.2026 07:05(KST)

Amended 'Socheok Act' to Prevent Trial Delays
Support Expected for Victims of Everyday Crimes
Questions Remain Over the Enforcement of Prison Sentences

On May 7, the partial amendment to the “Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, etc.” (Socheok Act) passed the plenary session of the National Assembly. As a result, in trials involving crimes that impact everyday life, such as voice phishing or fraud, defendants will no longer be able to intentionally delay proceedings by failing to appear in court without just cause. In the legislative proposal, lawmakers explained, “Victims are suffering doubly, as they appear in court at every session to plead their case but are unable to receive a verdict.” What kind of cases have actually occurred?

Victims ‘Appeal Their Pain’

It is common in fraud cases for defendants who are being tried without detention to fail to appear at the trial date. They may attend court up until the closing arguments to contest the charges, but then fail to appear for the judgment, forcing the court to postpone sentencing.

A recent computer purchase fraud trial is a prime example. Victims who were defrauded through an online secondhand trading site attended the trial only to find the defendant’s seat empty, having to leave disappointed. They had hoped the court might at least issue a compensation order, but since the defendant failed to appear, they were forced to go home empty-handed.

This is no different in other fraud cases. A lawyer who mainly represents victims said, “It is all too common for proceedings to stall because the defendant fails to appear on a day scheduled for witness examination,” adding, “Most victims are deeply invested in their cases, and nothing is more frustrating than the defendant not showing up for trial.”

There are also cases involving foreign defendants residing overseas who, even after learning they have been indicted, fail to appear, resulting in trials being delayed for years. For the victims, there is nothing they can do but wait helplessly for years.

Some Trials Stalled for 8 Years...

There are even cases where a trial has dragged on for eight years due to the defendant’s willful absence and unknown whereabouts. In one case, Mr. A, who was indicted in 2018, repeatedly received a “whereabouts unknown” determination even while applying for a constitutional review. The court took all necessary steps, such as requesting a search for his whereabouts and issuing a warrant of attachment, and after receiving a report of undeliverable service, spent six months trying to locate him, all to no avail. The court ultimately proceeded with public notice service, but Mr. A did not appear at the first hearing. The court again proceeded with public notice service. From the second hearing onward, a trial in absentia could have been conducted, but Mr. A contacted the court and said he would attend the second hearing. Although about eight months had already elapsed due to previous procedures, the trial had to resume from where it left off when Mr. A reappeared. However, he subsequently went missing again, forcing the process to repeat, and nearly eight years have passed. This case is still ongoing in court.

There are also many cases involving foreign defendants. Defendant B, a foreign national, suddenly failed to appear for the sentencing hearing, and sentencing could not be carried out. The court asked the prosecutor to correct the address, but the reply from the prosecution was that the defendant had “departed for China.” If the defendant is still in Korea, he may be apprehended, but if the prosecution did not previously impose an exit ban, the case can end up unresolved.

In some cases, a long-term unresolved case is narrowly avoided when the defendant is apprehended and appears in court following the issuance of a detention warrant. A judge at a metropolitan court stated, “Because the Supreme Court strictly interprets the requirements for public notice service, there are often delays in handling cases when, for example, the defendant has a prior record of appearing in court or can be reached by phone, even after a request for a search and a report of undeliverable service have been filed.”

Will There Be Real Relief for Victims?

Some express concerns regarding verdicts being issued while the defendant is absent. A veteran attorney said, “I doubt whether it will be possible to enforce a prison sentence against a defendant who does not show up for the sentencing.” He added, “What victims want is real compensation, not just a verdict, so in such cases, their suffering may not be alleviated.” Another experienced attorney also commented, “While trials delayed by a defendant’s intentional absence may proceed more quickly, it remains to be seen whether this will ultimately lead to actual relief for victims.”

Another lawyer pointed out, “If sentencing is carried out while the defendant is absent, the appeal period may be missed.” However, in this case, it appears that a claim for restoration of the right to appeal can be filed under the Criminal Procedure Act. According to Article 343, Paragraph 2 of the Act, the period for filing an appeal runs from the date the judgment is pronounced or notified. However, under Article 345, a person entitled to appeal may request restoration of the right to appeal if, through no fault of their own or their representative, they were unable to file an appeal within the designated period.

When the Amended Socheok Act Takes Effect...

Once the amended law takes effect, if a defendant who has appeared at least once for trial fails to show up for a subsequent hearing without just cause, the court will be able to proceed with the trial without the defendant’s statement. In addition, if a defendant, after appearing at the closing arguments and receiving notice of the sentencing date, fails to attend sentencing without just cause, the court will be able to deliver a verdict.

In principle, cases punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or confinement for more than 10 years are excluded from the scope of application. However, cases such as fraud or voice phishing, as defined in Article 32, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Court Organization Act (exceptional single-judge jurisdiction), and cases involving organized crime groups formed for the purpose of committing these crimes, may be subject to the new rules regardless of the statutory penalty.

The amended law will take effect from the date of promulgation and will also apply to cases already ongoing in court at the time of implementation.