The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) although the defendant and the public defender requested the time to appoint a private defense counsel on the first trial date; (b) the defendant and the public defense counsel did not accept the request even though the appointed private defense counsel filed an application for resumption of pleading to dispute the calculation of additional collection charges, it practically infringes the right to assistance of the defense counsel; and (c) the defendant did not obtain any profit from the criminal act or the return; and (d) the court below found erroneous facts and ordered the defendant to collect additional collection by misunderstanding the legal principles on additional collection, and thus,

However, according to the records, the court below acknowledged that the trial was in progress in the presence of a public defender and the legitimate conclusion of pleadings. Thus, the court below did not accept the request for resumption of pleadings of the appointed private defense counsel and rendered a judgment on the date of the declaration of notice and thus did not practically infringe on the right to assistance of the defense counsel. In addition, even if examining the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the defendant's violation of Article 48 of the Korean Racing Association Act and thereby did not err in the misapprehension of the relevant legal principles.

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