[2] In a case where the appellate court judged that there was only the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing even though a mistake of facts, etc. by a private defense counsel other than unfair sentencing by the defendant was alleged as the grounds for appeal, but the appellate court reversed and rendered a judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and found the defendant guilty of all the criminal facts against the defendant, whether

[2] In a case where the appellate court judged that there was only the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing even though a mistake of facts, etc. by a private defense counsel other than the defendant's unfair sentencing by the defendant was alleged as the grounds for appeal, but the appellate court reversed and rendered a judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and convicted all the defendant of the criminal facts against the defendant, the appellate court, which recognized that the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing are partially well-grounded, reversed and rendered a judgment of the first instance court and convicted the defendant of all the criminal facts against the defendant, thereby rejecting the grounds for appeal, such as misconception of facts against the private defense counsel.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In the so-called case requiring attorney-at-law, if the defendant has no defense counsel, the court of appeals in receipt of the records shall appoint a defense counsel without delay and notify the counsel of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records, so that the defendant can prepare and submit the statement of grounds for appeal on behalf of the defendant within the prescribed period from the date the defense counsel receives the notification (Article 156-2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure). The above right of the defendant to receive the assistance of the defense counsel shall be protected equally in the case where the court appoints a defense counsel on behalf of the defendant who does not appoint a defense counsel without any justifiable reason in the case requiring attorney-at-law case, but if the defendant already appointed a defense counsel without any time to prepare and submit the statement of grounds for appeal on behalf of the defendant, because the defense counsel has already been too over the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal for the defendant, by applying Article 156-2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure by analogy to the private defense counsel, and thus the court shall give the defendant

However, according to the records, the court below did not appoint a public defender without any justifiable reasons in this case, which is a case requiring a defense counsel under Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and when the defendant appointed a public defender at the latest, it can be known that the defendant had already been in excess of the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal against the defendant. Thus, the court below should separately notify the defendant of the notification of the receipt of the grounds for appeal against the defendant and allow the private defense counsel to submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the prescribed period from the time when the notification is made. If the private defense counsel has not been made between the defendant and the defendant, it cannot be said that the above statement of grounds for appeal is unlawful on the ground that the private defense counsel has been submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal. Thus, the court below should consider the above grounds for appeal

Therefore, while explaining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below stated only the grounds for appeal by the defendant claiming that the sentencing of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it cannot be deemed appropriate that the court below did not indicate any judgment on the grounds for appeal by the private defense counsel of the above private defense counsel, claiming that there is illegality in violation of the rules of evidence concerning the defendant's criminal intent to escape in addition to unfair sentencing. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the appeal by finding the defendant guilty of all the criminal facts against the defendant while reversing the judgment of the court of first instance and finding the defendant guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1297, Sept. 12, 1989; 9Do1238, Jun. 11, 1999; 200Do1233, May 16, 200).

Therefore, although the court below did not timely appoint a public defender and did not judge the grounds for appeal by a private defense counsel, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, this part of the grounds for appeal that there is a violation of the law in the litigation procedure that affected the result of the judgment of the court below is eventually unacceptable.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of escape after the death of this case and punished the defendant at the time of the crime of escape, and there is no violation of law of mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. According to records, it is clear that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, but the defendant did not have the ability or decision-making ability to discern things or make decision-making ability, and therefore, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment even if the court below did not judge the defendant's assertion that he did not memory under the influence of alcohol, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal that there was an error of omission of judgment or lack of reason which affected the result of the

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)