Article 403 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that no appeal shall be filed against a decision on the jurisdiction of the court or the litigation procedures prior to the judgment unless an immediate appeal may be filed in particular.

Therefore, unless it is clear that the decision dismissing the request for appointment of a state appointed defense counsel by Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the same Act is the litigation procedure prior to the judgment, and there is no ground to file an immediate appeal against the decision, an appeal may not be filed.

In the same purport, it is just to dismiss the defendant's appeal of this case, and there is no violation of the Constitution or law that affected the judgment like the theory of lawsuit.

According to Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or other reasons, the court shall appoint a defense counsel at the request of the defendant. Thus, the court's dismissal of the defendant's request for appointment does not violate Article 11 of the Constitution, considering that the defendant does not constitute a case where the appointment of

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)