According to the records, this case is not a requisite attorney-at-law, and the defendant did not request the appointment of a public defender even after being notified by the court below for the appointment of a public defender, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's right to receive assistance from a public defender has been infringed in the trial process of the court below, and the argument that the right to receive assistance from a public defender

In addition, the argument that the time to reach an agreement with the victim may not be a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.