The part against Defendant A is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Western District Court.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. The “right to have the assistance of a counsel” guaranteed by the constitutional principle regarding the right to have the substantial assistance of a public defender refers to the right to have the assistance of a counsel. As such, the State’s duty to guarantee the defendant’s right to have the assistance of a public defender includes the obligation to allow the defendant to have the assistance of a public defender (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 2009Mo1044, Feb. 16, 2012). In light of the facts charged in itself, in a case where the arguments favorable to a defendant cause unfavorable consequences against another defendant, the interests of co-defendants conflict with each other.

If one of the defendants whose interests conflict, appointed a specific law firm as a defense counsel, and the law firm designated a lawyer, if the court appoints one or more of the attorneys as a public defender for another defendant, the attorney appointed as a public defender is difficult to hold a favorable pleading for all the defendants whose interests conflict.

Ultimately, the above other defendants are deemed to have become unable to obtain the substantial assistance of the public defender, and therefore the above appointment of a public defender infringes on the defendant's right to receive the assistance of the public defender.

B. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the part related to Defendant B among the facts charged against the Defendants against Defendant A is that Defendant A had injured Defendant B by pushing the chest of Defendant B with his arms.

On the other hand, the facts charged against Defendant B are likely to cause the shoulder of Defendant A by means of waste in the event that Defendant B suffers an injury as above.