A. According to the records of this case, Defendant B (Submission of the Reasons for Appeal) filed an appeal against the lower court on July 11, 2016, and the Defendant received the notification of the receipt of the trial record from the lower court on August 11, 2016, and this court appointed a public defender from the Defendant’s public defender on August 17, 2016. The Defendant sent the notification of the receipt of trial record to the public defender on August 19, 2016. The Defendant revoked the appointment of a public defender on August 22, 2016. The Defendant’s private defense counsel on October 13, 2016, asserted that the private defense counsel of the Defendant B’s written opinion reached the appeal of this case on the ground of unfair sentencing. Examining ex officio the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s ex officio decision did not err by exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion or exceeding the bounds of discretion, considering all the elements of sentencing as well as the role and degree of participation in each of the instant crimes.

However, according to Article 361-2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the defendant et al. appoints a defense counsel before the notification of the receipt of the trial records, the court of appeals should also notify the defense counsel of the receipt of the trial records. Thus, in a case where the defense counsel is appointed only after the notification of the notification of the trial records to the defendant for interpretation of the opposite interpretation, it does not need to give the same notification again to the defense counsel, and the same applies in a case where the appellate court revokes the appointment of a

Supreme Court Decision 200