The Supreme Court ruled that while it is inappropriate for a prosecutor not to present a sentencing recommendation orally at the closing argument but to do so in writing after arguments have concluded, there is no problem with the court issuing a judgment.
The Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) said on the 26th that it affirmed the lower court ruling sentencing a person surnamed Lee (59) to two years in prison in an appeal in a fraud case on the 8th of last month.
Lee had three prior finalized prison sentences for fraud. In Feb. 2011, in Dongan District, Anyang, Gyeonggi Province, Lee and victim A established and ran a lending company and invested in real estate. At the same time, starting in Sept. 2021, Lee worked as a registration team staff member at a law firm in Seocho District, Seoul.
In June 2013, Lee told A, "If we buy a forested lot in Gapyeong County, Gyeonggi Province, build a long-term care hospital on 600 pyeong, and sell the rest as multifamily housing sites, it will generate large revenue," and said, "The registration expense for the land is needed, so please wire the money." At the time, Lee needed expenses for a different real estate registration but, lacking money, lied to A. Using this method, Lee took 28 million won from A.
Also that month, Lee told A, "If we build urban-style housing on seven land parcels in Icheon, Gyeonggi Province, it will generate large revenue," and asked for 200 million won needed to purchase the land. A sent Lee 200 million won. But Lee used the money to pay off personal debt and had no intention of building urban-style housing.
In May 2023, the first trial sentenced Lee to two years in prison. Lee did not appear in court, and the first-trial panel sent a summons by public notice and proceeded with the hearing in Lee's absence.
Lee did not appeal, but then sought restoration of the right to appeal, saying there was a reason that prevented an appeal within seven days of the first-trial judgment. In the second trial, which proceeded after the request was granted, Lee was again sentenced to two years in prison.
Challenging the second-trial ruling, Lee's side argued that the prosecutor's written sentencing recommendation violated the law. At the third court hearing of the second trial, the prosecutor said the final opinion would be submitted in writing, and a week later submitted to the court a written opinion recommending two years in prison for Lee. The court gave Lee and the defense an opportunity for a final statement at the fourth court hearing and delivered the judgment at the fifth court hearing.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying, "Even if the lower court pronounced judgment after the prosecutor's written sentencing recommendation, it cannot be seen that the defendant's right to defense or the defense counsel's right to counsel was essentially violated."
In a typical trial, after the prosecutor presents a final opinion, the defendant and defense give their final statements. In this case, after the prosecutor's "written sentencing recommendation," Lee and the defense gave their final statements at the next court hearing.
However, the Supreme Court said, "It is not desirable for a prosecutor, without presenting views on sentencing at a court hearing, to make a 'written sentencing recommendation' by stating views in writing after arguments have concluded."