Judgment

1. Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, without a request from a defendant when the defendant is detained, a defense counsel shall be appointed without delay, and Article 156-2(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that, in the case of a necessary attorney-at-law case, if the defendant does not have a defense counsel, the appellate court shall appoint a public defender without delay and notify his/her defense counsel of the receipt of the records of trial. In the case of the defendant's appeal, the criminal appellate court basically decides on the grounds for appeal included in the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal (Article 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal shall start from the date the appellate court receives the notice of receipt of the records of trial from the appellate court (Articles 361-3(1) and 361-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Article 156-2(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that the defendant separately notifies the national defense counsel of the receipt of the records of grounds for appeal.

2. According to the records, the lower court, ex officio, did not appoint a state appointed defense counsel for the defendant detained in Seoul Southern District Court 2014No1664 case (hereinafter “1 case”), but did not notify the state appointed defense counsel of receipt of the records of trial; thereafter, the lower court decided to conduct a joint hearing of the case No. 2015No105 case (hereinafter “No. 2 case”); while the state appointed defense counsel filed the statement of grounds for appeal for the case No. 2 case, the state appointed defense counsel did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal for the case No. 1; however, the lower court dismissed all the judgment of the first instance as to the case No. 1 and No. 2 case on March 13, 2015 (hereinafter “the first case”) and sentenced the defendant to one punishment by applying the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court: (a) notified the public defender of the receipt of the records on the case No. 1; and (b) provided the public defender with the opportunity to prepare and submit the statement of grounds for appeal for the defendant within the prescribed period from the date the notification was made; and (c) protected the defendant’s right to receive assistance from the defense counsel. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment without providing the defendant with an opportunity to submit the statement of grounds for appeal by omitting the notification of receipt of the records

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the first case should be reversed. However, since the court below deemed this part and the remaining criminal facts found guilty as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced a single punishment, the part of the judgment of the court below as guilty should be reversed

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below's conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim Gin-

Justices Kwon Soon-il