[재물손괴][미간행]
[1] The case where the court must appoint a state appointed defense counsel at its discretion pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act
[2] In a case where the defendant was indicted for causing damage to property by cutting part of the outer wall of the building, which is the joint ownership of the victims without permission, and does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the case affirming the judgment of the court below and the measure of the court below which conducted the trial without the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel, on the ground that the court does not have to appoint a state
[1] Article 33 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 33 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1886 Decided May 9, 2013 (Gong2013Sang, 1069) Supreme Court Decision 2017Do14514 Decided November 14, 2017
Defendant
Defendant
Gwangju District Court Decision 2017No245 decided May 31, 2017
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the reason why a defense counsel shall be appointed under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides, “Where the court deems it necessary for the protection of rights in consideration of the age, intelligence, level of education, etc. of the accused, it shall appoint a defense counsel to the extent not against the express will of the accused.” The appointment of a defense counsel pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act is limited to cases where the court deems it necessary for the protection of the accused’s rights
Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, in this case where the reasons under any subparagraph of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are not applicable, the judgment and measure of the court below which conducted the trial without the appointment of a public defender by deeming that it is not necessary for the court to appoint a public defender at its discretion in order to protect the rights of the accused are justifiable. The failure of the court below to appoint a public defender by infringing the defendant's right to defense
According to the records, the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date of the court below, and the court below did not consider the matters alleged in the grounds for appeal ex officio. In such a case, the argument
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)