Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant filed a petition with the court for the selection of a national defense counsel on January 12, 2016, which was after the deadline for filing the appeal was not timely, and this court rendered a decision to appoint a national defense counsel on July 14, 2016. The defendant's national defense counsel on August 5, 2016 may recognize the fact that the defendant's national defense counsel submitted a statement of reasons for appeal on August 5, 2016. However, the defendant's defense counsel is not a requisite attorney pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but is not a case where the defendant must appoint a national defense counsel pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In this case, the defendant filed a petition for the selection of a national defense counsel pursuant to Article 33 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court made a decision to appoint a national defense counsel pursuant to the above provision, and it does not need to receive the record of trial from the national defense counsel.

Even if an appeal is filed by a national defense counsel, the period for filing an appeal shall be calculated from the date on which the defendant received the notice of receipt of the records of trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4114, Jun. 27, 2013). Therefore, the grounds for appeal filed by a national defense counsel in the instant case are submitted after the submission period for the reasons for appeal, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

However, in the above appellate brief, the defendant's defense counsel sent text messages to the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, but there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles that this does not constitute intimidation. Thus, it is acknowledged by the evidence of the court below ex officio.