1. A participatory trial cannot be conducted against the defendant's will with the exception of the limitation of time and procedure under Article 8 (4) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (hereinafter "the Act"), with respect to the reversal of the intention to conduct it. Thus, even if the first instance court conducts a trial in ordinary procedure without confirming the defendant's intention on it, if the defendant does not want a participatory trial at the appellate court and clearly expresses his/her intention not to see the above procedural illegality in the first instance trial, the defect is cured and the first instance trial procedure is legitimate as a whole.

However, in light of the purpose of the citizen participation trial system and the relevant provisions that practically guarantee the defendant's right to a citizen participation trial, the defect in the first instance trial procedure that infringed on the above right is cured must be given in advance to the defendant pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Act and Article 3 (1) of the Rules on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in accordance with Article 3 (1) of the Rules on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials.

(2) According to the records, the first instance court, which deliberated on the violation of the Narcotics Control Act among the facts charged in the instant case, constitutes a case subject to a participatory trial pursuant to Article 5(1)3 of the Act, without confirming whether the Defendant wants a participatory trial according to the procedure prescribed in the Act, and proceed with a trial according to the ordinary procedure without confirming whether he/she wants a participatory trial pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Act, and the lower court on October 2, 2013.