Article 33(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court shall appoint a defense counsel ex officio in cases falling under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1). In cases falling under paragraph (3), if there is no defense counsel, a defense counsel shall be appointed. On the other hand, Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed at the discretion of the defendant within the extent that does not go against the express will of the defendant, except in cases falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, unless the court recognizes it necessary for the protection of rights, and even if the trial is conducted without the appointment of a public defender, if it is not recognized that the defendant's defense right is infringed and affected the judgment, it shall not be deemed that there is an unlawful violation of Article

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1886 Decided May 9, 2013, etc.). According to the records, in this case, which does not fall under any of the grounds provided for in the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant stated that all of the facts charged in the instant case is recognized by the first instance court on the date of the first instance trial, without any objection, while receiving a notice for the appointment of a public defender along with a copy of the indictment, and then the first instance court has conducted an examination of evidence through a simplified trial procedure, and then

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the measures and procedures of the first instance court, which proceeded with the trial without the appointment of a public defender, is justifiable, on the ground that the court does not need to appoint a public defender at its discretion in order to protect the rights of the defendant