Supreme Court Decision 2022Do924, August 13, 2026 [Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle]

【Holding】

[1] Whether an appellate court may adjudicate an appellate case without awaiting the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal (negative) / Whether it is unlawful for an appellate court to pronounce judgment and conclude the appellate trial before the periods for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal for both the defendant and defense counsel have expired (affirmative)

[2] Where a defendant who requested a formal trial in objection to a summary order fails, without justifiable grounds, to appear at two consecutive trial dates despite having been lawfully summoned in the formal trial proceedings, and the court conducts the examination of evidence without the defendant's attendance, whether the defendant's consent to evidence is deemed to have been given (affirmative), and whether, in order to deem consent to evidence and conduct the examination of evidence without the defendant's attendance in such case, the trial date must be one on which the court may lawfully conduct a trial in absentia (affirmative)

【Summary of Decision】

[1] According to the provisions of Articles 361-3 and 364, etc. of the Criminal Procedure Act, the structure of the appellate trial is such that the case is adjudicated on the basis of the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant or defense counsel within the statutory period, and therefore an appellate case cannot be adjudicated without awaiting the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal. An appellate court's pronouncing judgment and concluding the appellate trial before the periods for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal for both the defendant and defense counsel have expired deprives the defendant and defense counsel of the opportunity to submit the statement of grounds of appeal until the expiration of the submission period, and constitutes a violation of statutes affecting the judgment.

[2] Where a defendant who requested a formal trial in objection to a summary order fails, without justifiable grounds, to appear at two consecutive trial dates despite having been lawfully summoned in the formal trial proceedings, and the court conducts the examination of evidence without the defendant's attendance pursuant to Articles 458(2) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant's consent to evidence under Article 318(2) of the same Act is deemed to have been given. In such case, in order to deem consent to evidence under Article 318(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and conduct the examination of evidence without the defendant's attendance, the trial date on which consent to evidence is deemed must be a trial date on which the court may lawfully conduct a trial in absentia pursuant to Articles 458(2) and 365 of the same Act.

【Referenced Statutes】

[1] Articles 361-3 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act [2] Articles 318(2), 365, and 458(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

【Referenced Precedents】

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2611, June 25, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1295)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5776, July 15, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1686)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2022Do924, August 13, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Supreme Court of Korea)

2026. 10. 26. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin