When the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender for reasons of poverty, etc., while receiving the assistance of a public defender, the court delayed the appointment and requested the appointment of a public defender only after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds for grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal without justifiable grounds. If the defendant did not have the assistance of counsel necessary for the preparation and submission of the statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal, this would not be different from that of the defendant's right to assistance by the court. Thus, even if the defendant did not submit the legitimate statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal within the period for grounds of appeal, the defendant shall not immediately dismiss the defendant's appeal by ruling for such reasons. In such a case, Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the public defender, and the opportunity to provide such opportunities, only if the defendant fails to submit the grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds.

According to the records, on November 30, 199, after the appeal of this case, the re-appellant received a written notification of the receipt of the trial record from the court below on November 30, 199, and on December 7, 1999, which was earlier than the expiration date of the submission period for the statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal, the re-appellant requested the appointment of a public defender under Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that "it is difficult to appoint a private defense counsel individually due to family circumstances". The court below accepted this and delayed the decision of appointment without any special reason, and then delayed the decision of appointment of a public defense counsel for the re-appellant only after January 18, 200, after the expiration of the submission period for grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal, it can be seen that the re-appellant failed to obtain the assistance of counsel necessary for preparing and submitting the

Therefore, in this case, the re-appellant's failure to receive the assistance of the public defender for the preparation and submission of the statement of reasons for appeal is not caused by the cause attributable to the re-appellant, but due to the delay in the appointment decision of the court of original instance. Thus, the court of original judgment should apply Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure by analogying the notification of the receipt of reasons for appeal to the public defender by providing the public defender with an opportunity to submit the statement of reasons for appeal for the re-appellant, so that the

Nevertheless, the court below, without taking the above procedure, dismissed the appeal by the ruling of the re-appellant pursuant to Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act just on the ground that the re-appellant did not submit a legitimate ground of appeal within the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal. This cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The part pointing this out out

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)