KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Court Skipped the Phone Numbers in the File Before Trying Public Notice — Supreme Court Says That’s Unlawful

By ,

The Supreme Court has ruled that a court cannot resort to public notice service and proceed with trial in a defendant’s absence if contact numbers for the defendant or family members already appear in the case file and were never tried. Here are the key points.

Issue

Where a defendant’s or a family member’s phone number is already on record in the case file, must the court attempt to call those numbers before resorting to public notice service — and does skipping that step invalidate a conviction reached in the defendant’s absence?

Facts

  • A was convicted and fined in several separate cases for fraud and violating the confidentiality provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes. A appealed.
  • The appellate court repeatedly sent summons to the address listed in the indictment, but delivery failed each time. The court then requested a location trace through police.
  • Police initially reported that A was living in Seoul and that a contact number could be confirmed. A second location trace later reported that A appeared to have lived at the listed address but was currently absent.
  • In December 2024, the appellate court ordered public notice service. After A failed to appear at two consecutive hearings, the court proceeded with the trial without A’s testimony, partially overturned the first-instance verdict, and imposed a fine of ₩5 million.

Rule

  • Public notice service is a substituted method of delivering court documents, used only when a defendant’s whereabouts genuinely cannot be determined through reasonable efforts.
  • Where contact information for the defendant or family members exists in the case record, courts must first attempt to use that information to locate the defendant or confirm an address for service before resorting to public notice.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Criminal Division 3, presiding Justice Lee Suk-yeon) quashed the appellate decision on April 30, 2026, and remanded to Gwangju District Court.
  • The court found that the trial-level evidentiary record contained a phone number belonging to A’s brother, recorded in a police suspect interrogation report, and that a separate filing — A’s request for restoration of the right to a formal trial — contained another phone number for A himself. The appellate court never attempted to call either number before ordering public notice service.
  • The court held that before resorting to public notice, the appellate court was obligated to call the numbers already in the record belonging to A or his family to attempt to locate him or confirm an address for service. Instead, the appellate court simply concluded that A’s residence, workplace, and current location were unknown, proceeded with public notice service, and rendered judgment without A’s testimony.
  • This failure deprived A of a meaningful opportunity to appear at trial, constituting a violation of procedural law that affected the judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • Public notice service is a measure of last resort. Courts cannot invoke it without first exhausting reasonably available means of contacting the defendant — including phone numbers already sitting in the case file.
  • The obligation extends to family members’ contact information, not just the defendant’s own number, where such information appears in the record.
  • A failed location trace report alone does not justify public notice service if other unexplored contact avenues exist in the file.
  • Proceeding to trial and judgment without the defendant’s participation, where public notice was improperly ordered, constitutes a procedural violation serious enough to require reversal — regardless of the substantive merits of the conviction.

Why This Matters

This ruling sets a concrete, practical standard for when public notice service is actually justified: courts must affirmatively check the file for any contact information already available and attempt to use it before declaring a defendant’s whereabouts unknown. For defense practitioners, the decision provides a clear basis to challenge convictions entered through public notice service whenever the record shows unused contact information that could have led to actual notification. For courts, it serves as a procedural checklist — location trace reports alone are not sufficient if the file contains untried phone numbers for the defendant or close family.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=222075&page=2&total=25168

Leave a comment