1. Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court shall appoint a defense counsel ex officio pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same Article, while Article 33 of the same Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed if no defense counsel exists in cases falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1). On the other hand, Article 3 of the same Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed at a discretion to the extent that it does not go against the express will of the defendant, only when it is deemed necessary for protecting the rights in consideration of the age, intelligence, level

Therefore, if the court does not recognize that it is necessary for the protection of rights, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it may not appoint a national defense counsel, and even if a trial is conducted without appointing a national defense counsel, the defendant's defense right is infringed and affected the judgment.

If not recognized, there is a violation of Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It cannot be seen (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1886, May 9, 2013). Defendant was detained by a warrant of detention for compulsory appearance on the date of the third public trial at the first public trial at the court of first instance, and is a literature Federation. As such, the first public trial court appointed a defense counsel ex officio to the Defendant without a defense counsel.

In addition, the trial proceedings have been conducted without a defense counsel with an emphasis on the necessary attorney-at-law case, and it asserts that all the procedural acts conducted are invalid.

The record reveals the following facts.

The presiding judge of the first instance court issued a warrant of detention to arrest a defendant as the defendant did not serve a writ of summons on the defendant, and the defendant served on the third trial date of the first instance court on January 12, 2016 after the execution of the above warrant.

The defendant is at a low level of ability to read or write Korean language, and it is impossible for police officers to peruse when preparing a protocol to examine the suspect of the police.