The appellate court in receipt of the appellate brief shall, where the accused does not have a defense counsel in the case requiring a defense counsel under Article 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, appoint a defense counsel without delay and notify him of the receipt of the trial record, and where a defense counsel is appointed pursuant to Article 33 (3) and a defense counsel is appointed pursuant to the request for the appointment of a public defender under Article 33 (2) before the date of application for the appellate brief is not timely filed (Article 156-2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure), protect the defendant's right to have the defense counsel assisted by preparing and submitting the appellate brief within the prescribed period from

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11213 Decided April 9, 2009, etc.). According to the records, in this case, not the case requiring an attorney-at-law under Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court, despite the absence of the Defendant’s request for appointment under Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, decided to appoint a public defender on November 26, 2013, and notified the public defender of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the public defender on November 27, 2013, and the public defender submitted the statement of grounds for appeal on December 12, 2013.

Therefore, the court below appointed a state appointed defense counsel pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the state appointed defense counsel submitted the statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days from the date on which the public defender received the notification of the receipt of the trial records, and in light of the above legal principles

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal without determining the grounds for appeal filed by a state appointed defense counsel, on the grounds that the grounds for appeal were not lawfully submitted within the submission period. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.