(영문) 대법원 2015.12.24. 선고 2015도16792 판결

The appellate court in receipt of the record of appeal shall, where the defendant is not a defense counsel in the case requiring a defense counsel under Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, appoint a defense counsel without delay and notify the defense counsel of the receipt of the records of trial, and where a defense counsel is appointed pursuant to Article 33(3) and a defense counsel is appointed pursuant to the request for appointment of a public defender under Article 33(2) made before the deadline for submitting the statement of appeal is not timely (Article 156-2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure), protect the defendant's right to receive assistance by allowing the defense counsel to prepare and submit the statement of appeal for the defendant within the prescribed period from the date the defense counsel is notified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do1063, Apr. 9, 2009; 2008Do11213, Apr. 5, 2009).

According to the records, in this case that is not a requisite attorney-at-law under Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, there was no request for the appointment of the defendant under Article 33(2). However, on August 24, 2015, the court below decided to appoint a public defender, notified the public defender of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial record, and the public defender reached August 26, 2015. The public defender submitted the grounds for appeal on September 8, 2015 on the first day of the court below trial.

Therefore, the court below selected the state appointed the state appointed number pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and filed the statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days from the day on which the public defender received the notification of the receipt of the public defender, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the statement of reasons for appeal

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed without examining the grounds for appeal filed by a public defender, on the grounds that the grounds for appeal were not lawfully submitted within the submission period. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the submission period of the grounds for appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.