The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of intrusion on structures.

The Defendant was found to have unilaterally selected a national defense counsel without questioning the Defendant’s intent.

The argument is asserted.

Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court shall appoint a defense counsel to the extent that it does not go against the explicit will of the defendant when the court deems it necessary to protect the rights in consideration of the age intelligence, education level, etc. of the defendant.

On the record, the court below, despite the defendant's explicit dissenting opinion, appointed a national defense counsel;

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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