Where a court delays the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel for reasons of the defendant's poverty, etc. without justifiable grounds, and a state appointed defense counsel after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal, and the defendant has failed to have the defense counsel necessary for the preparation and submission of the grounds of appeal, and the court has to take measures to file the grounds of appeal.

When the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender for reasons of poverty, etc., while receiving the assistance of a public defender, the court delayed the appointment and requested the appointment of a public defender only after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds for grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal without justifiable grounds. If the defendant did not have the assistance of counsel necessary for the preparation and submission of the statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal and the defendant did not have the right to counsel. Thus, even if the defendant did not submit the legitimate statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal within the period for grounds of appeal, the defendant shall not immediately dismiss the defendant's appeal by decision for such reasons. In such a case, Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the public defender, and the public defender shall be given an opportunity to submit the grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds.

Articles 33 subparag. 5, 358, and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure

Re-appellant

Changwon District Court Order 99No2298 dated April 11, 2000

The order of the court below shall be reversed. The case shall be remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

When the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender for reasons of poverty, etc., while receiving the assistance of a public defender, the court delayed the appointment and requested the appointment of a public defender only after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds for grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal without justifiable grounds. If the defendant did not have the assistance of counsel necessary for the preparation and submission of the statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal, this would not be different from that of the defendant's right to assistance by the court. Thus, even if the defendant did not submit the legitimate statement of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal within the period for grounds of appeal, the defendant shall not immediately dismiss the defendant's appeal on the grounds of such reasons. In such a case, Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the public defender, regardless of the provision of such opportunity, it can only dismiss the defendant's right to appeal.

According to the records, on November 30, 199, after the appeal of this case, the re-appellant received the notification of the receipt of the trial record from the court of original instance on November 30, 199, and on December 7, 1999, which was earlier than the expiration date of the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal, the Re-Appellant requested the appointment of a public defender under Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that "it is difficult to appoint a private defense counsel individually due to family circumstances". While accepting the request, the court delayed the decision of appointment without any special reason, and the court delayed the decision of the appointment of a public defender for the Re-Appellant only after January 18, 200, after the expiration of the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal, it can be seen that the Re-Appellant failed to obtain the assistance of counsel necessary for the preparation and submission of the statement

Therefore, in this case, the re-appellant did not receive any assistance from a public defender for the preparation and submission of the statement of reasons for appeal, not due to the causes attributable to the re-appellant, but due to the delay in the decision of the court of original instance. Thus, the court of original judgment should apply Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure by analogying the notification of the receipt of reasons for appeal to the public defender by providing the public defender an opportunity to submit the statement of reasons for appeal for the re-appellant, thereby allowing the re-appellant

Nevertheless, the court below, without taking the above procedure, dismissed the appeal by the ruling pursuant to Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act just on the ground that the re-appellant did not submit a legitimate statement of grounds for appeal within the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal. This does not constitute an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Of the grounds for reappeal, the part pointing out

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)