1. The content of the judgment is not itself, but in the case where litigation procedures, such as detention, etc. for the security of the defendant's personal illness, are in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, so long as the defendant's right to defense or the right to assistance of counsel is essentially infringed and it seems difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the judgment, it cannot be deemed that

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do1003, Jul. 23, 1985; 94Do129, Nov. 4, 1994). According to the records, following facts are revealed.

The Defendant was detained on January 19, 2018 on the instant criminal facts based on a detention warrant issued without undergoing a prior hearing procedure under Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, on April 13, 2018, the court of the first instance issued a new detention warrant to the defendant on the same day as the court of the first instance recognized that there was a ground for detention through legitimate hearing procedure.

As such, the detention of the defendant was continued according to the new detention warrant issued lawfully.

The defendant received the assistance of counsel from the above hearing procedure to the first instance court and the trial procedure of the court below.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the records, there is no illegality to deem that it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the judgment of the court below as the defendant’s right of defense is essentially infringed during the process of physical confinement of the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the violation of the law regarding the issuance and execution of detention warrant against the defendant.

4. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced.