The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as set forth in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to

In addition, 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) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed if there is no defense counsel. On the other hand, Article 3 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 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, except in cases falling under each subparagraph of Article 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, unless the court recognizes it necessary for the protection of rights, and even if the 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 an

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1886, May 9, 2013). According to the records, in this case where it does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is difficult to deem that the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel is necessarily necessary for the protection of the rights of the accused, the lower court’s holding a pleading without the appointment of

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