1. Article 33(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court shall appoint a defense counsel ex officio in cases falling under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) and Article 33(3) provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed if there is no defense counsel. On the other hand, Article 33(3) provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed at the discretion of the defendant within the extent that does not go against the express will of the defendant, unless the court recognizes it necessary for the protection of rights, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, even if a trial is conducted without the appointment of a public defender, if it is not recognized that the defendant's defense right is infringed and affected the judgment, it shall not be deemed that there is a violation of Article 33(3

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1886, May 9, 2013). In addition, “when the defendant is detained” under Article 33(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where the defendant is already detained and is under trial in the pertinent criminal case. Thus, even if the court rendered a judgment on the non-detained defendant, the above provision shall not be deemed to apply until he/she is detained, even after the court rendered a judgment on the

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17353, Mar. 10, 201). According to the records, in this case, where a case does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant recognized most of the facts charged on the date of the first trial of the court of first instance and concluded pleadings through evidence examination, and against the other co-defendants.