The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court must make an effort to ascertain the defendant's address before proceeding with public notification. This means at least sending a summons to the defendant's alternative address or attempting to contact family members. Public notification is a procedure where, if the defendant's address cannot be verified, the court posts the lawsuit documents in official gazettes and considers them delivered to the opposing party.
The Supreme Court's first division, led by Chief Justice Seo Kyung-hwan, announced on the 31st that it overturned a second trial ruling that sentenced a person surnamed A to one year and eight months in prison for fraud and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.
Person A appealed after receiving a one year and eight months prison sentence for fraud in the first trial. However, Person A did not attend the first hearing of the appeal. The court sent a summons to Person A's address, but it was not delivered due to the absence of the party and a closed door. The court requested the police to confirm Person A's whereabouts, but received a response stating that it could not be confirmed.
Consequently, the court issued a public notification for Person A's summons and proceeded with the trial without Person A, ultimately dismissing the appeal. After learning about this late, Person A filed a request to restore the right to appeal, which the court accepted and allowed them to appeal. The restoration of the right to appeal is a system that allows the right to appeal to be reinstated when the appellant or their representative was unable to appeal within the designated time due to reasons for which they could not be held responsible.
The Supreme Court determined that the appellate trial court should have sent a summons to Person A's alternative residence address or attempted to contact family members using their phone numbers for notification. The Supreme Court stated, "Failing to take such measures and proceeding directly with public notification, resulting in a verdict without the defendant's testimony, violates the Criminal Procedure Act."