Examining the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below compared with the records, it is sufficiently sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the fraud of this case, so there is no reason to challenge the judgment of the court below on this point.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

When a defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or any other reason pursuant to Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appointment of a defense counsel is limited to the case where the defendant requests the appointment of a defense counsel (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2117, Oct. 11, 1983). In addition, the court does not have a duty to notify the defendant that the defendant may request the appointment of a defense counsel according to the above Article

However, according to the records, the defendant did not request the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel under the above law until the closing of argument at the court below, and the court below proceeded with the trial without notifying the defendant that he would not appoint a state appointed defense counsel for the defendant and may request the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel. There is no reason to argue that there is no error.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)