[강도상해·폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반·윤락행위등방지법위반방조·사기][공2001.1.15.(122),222]
[1] The meaning of "when there is no conflict of interest between the several defendants" under Article 15 (2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure and the criteria for its determination
[2] The case holding that the case holding that the appointment of the same public defender is against Article 15 (2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the facts charged per se conflict with one another
[1] In the case where co-defendants, who do not have an accomplice relation, consider the facts charged as being in itself and the arguments favorable to one defendant result in unfavorable consequences against the other defendant, there is conflict of interests among co-defendants. Thus, in the case where the same public defender who has been appointed as co-defendants together with the co-defendants, it shall be deemed that Article 15 (2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is violated, and the decision on whether to conflict of interest between such co-defendants should not be made comprehensively on all the circumstances, but it shall be made practically by taking into account
[2] The case holding that since the victim of the charge of the crime against the defendant is a co-defendant and the argument favorable to the defendant has a unfavorable effect on the situation of the co-defendant, it is against Article 15 (2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure that the defendant and co-defendant in itself have a conflict of interest and the same public defender is appointed.
[1] Articles 282 and 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 15(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure / [2] Articles 282 and 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 15(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Park Jong-sck,
Seoul High Court Decision 2000No1625 delivered on September 22, 2000
The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
1. In the case where co-defendants who are not co-defendants in relation to the facts charged are deemed to have conflicting interests among co-defendants in view of the contents of the facts charged and the arguments favorable to one defendant bring about unfavorable results to the other defendant. Thus, if the same co-defendants who have been appointed as co-defendants together with the co-defendants, it shall be deemed that Article 15(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is violated, and the decision on whether there exists a conflict of interest between such co-defendants should not be made comprehensively on all the circumstances, but should be made practically
However, according to the records, the summary of the facts charged against Co-defendant 1 of this case (hereinafter referred to as Co-defendant 1 of this case) is as follows: "Co-defendant 1 threatened Co-defendant 1 of this case with a pro rata knife and assaults around 05:30 on March 18, 200," and the summary of the facts charged against Defendant 1 is as follows: "Co-defendant 1 was assaulted by Co-defendant 1 of this case from the above non-indicted 1 of this case, and he conspired the Co-defendant 2 of this case to capture money to the Co-defendant 1 of this case; from 14:00 on the 19th day of the same month to 18:00 on the same day, Co-defendant 1 of this case was forced to go aboard the victim's car and took checks, etc. from co-defendant 1 of this case, and thereby, the court below's judgment against Co-defendant 1 of this case's own favorable motive to the crime.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in violation of Article 15 (2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure with respect to the process of trial after selecting the same public defender against Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 through the public defender's pleading. Such illegality has influenced the judgment by an ombudsman who brought about the result of Defendant 1's failure to exercise effective defense right with the assistance of the public defender. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.
2. Therefore, without examining the argument in the other grounds of appeal, the part concerning Defendant 1 among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)