Supreme Court Addresses Procedural Issue in Fraud Sentencing
The Supreme Court has ruled that while a prosecutor’s submission of a sentencing recommendation in writing, rather than orally in court, is irregular, it does not invalidate the subsequent judgment. The ruling came in the case of a 59-year-old individual, identified as Mr. Lee, who was convicted of fraud and sentenced to two years imprisonment.
Background of the Case
Mr. Lee, who has a history of three prior fraud convictions, was found guilty of defrauding an individual, Ms. Kim, of approximately 28 million won and an additional 200 million won. The initial conviction and sentencing occurred in May 2023. Mr. Lee did not appear for the trial, and the court proceeded with the sentencing in his absence after sending a summons via public notice.
The fraud dates back to February 2011, when Mr. Lee, along with Ms. Kim, established a corporation offering high-end nursing care and real estate investments. Simultaneously, from September 2021, Mr. Lee worked as part of a registration team at a law firm in Seoul.
Investigators detailed that in June 2013, Mr. Lee falsely told Ms. Kim that investing in land in Gapyeong-gun, Gyeonggi Province, to build a nursing home and subdivide the remaining area for joint housing would yield significant profits. He requested money for registration fees, knowing he had no intention of proceeding with the investment and was using the funds to cover personal debts. Ms. Kim transferred 28 million won based on this misrepresentation.
Later that same month, Mr. Lee again approached Ms. Kim, claiming that purchasing seven parcels of land in Icheon-si, Gyeonggi Province, for the development of urban lifestyle housing would be highly profitable. He requested 200 million won for the land acquisition. Ms. Kim complied, but Mr. Lee used this money to settle his personal debts and had no intention of developing urban lifestyle housing.
Appeal and Procedural Challenge
Following the initial sentencing, Mr. Lee did not file an appeal within the stipulated seven-day period. However, he later requested a restoration of his appeal rights, citing valid reasons for the delay. His request was granted, and the case proceeded to a retrial.
During the retrial, Mr. Lee was again sentenced to two years imprisonment. His defense team challenged the second-instance ruling, arguing that the prosecutor’s submission of the sentencing recommendation in writing, rather than orally, violated legal procedures.
Court records show that during the third hearing of the retrial, the prosecutor stated an intention to submit the final opinion in writing. Approximately one week later, the prosecutor submitted a written opinion to the court recommending a two-year sentence for Mr. Lee.
The court granted Mr. Lee and his legal representative a final opportunity to present their arguments during the fourth hearing. The judgment was then delivered during the fifth hearing.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in its review, stated that even if the lower court proceeded to judgment after the prosecutor’s written submission, the defendant’s right to defense and the lawyer’s right to representation were not fundamentally infringed. The court acknowledged that typically, after a prosecutor presents their final oral opinion, the defendant and their lawyer have an opportunity for their final statements.
However, the Supreme Court also noted that prosecutors submitting written opinions after the oral arguments have concluded, rather than presenting their views on the case during the hearing, is not ideal. Despite this procedural irregularity, the court concluded that it did not constitute grounds for overturning the verdict.
