도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the punishment (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the instruction of compliance driving 40 hours) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. However, prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal, it is examined ex officio.
Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where a defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or any other reason, the court shall appoint a defense counsel if the defendant makes a request for the appointment of a defense counsel." Article 17(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed without delay when a request for the appointment of a defense counsel is made pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 17-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant shall submit explanatory materials when a request for the appointment of a defense counsel is made.
According to the records of this case, the defendant filed a request with the court below on October 26, 2017 for the selection of a national defense counsel for reasons of poverty, etc. in writing, along with supporting evidence that he/she is a disabled person with intellectual disability under the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, who is a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act. However, the court below's dismissal of the defendant's request for the appointment of a national defense counsel on November 10, 2017 and rendered the judgment below as it is.
Although the court below decided to appoint a defense counsel to the defendant who seems unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty, etc. and had the appointed defense counsel participate in the trial, it did not do so and sentenced the judgment without having such counsel participate in the trial, thereby violating the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. In order to prevent the defendant from exercising an effective defense right with the assistance of the national defense counsel, the court below affected the judgment.
Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.