beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
A seized driver's license.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's punishment (two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable;
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.
Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where a defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or any other reason, if requested by the defendant, the court shall appoint a defense counsel." Article 17(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that "if the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender pursuant to Article 33(2) of the above Act, the court shall appoint a public defender without delay. On the other hand, Article 38 of the same Act provides that "if a ruling or order is notified, it may be made only in the court records without preparing a written judgment," and Article 42 of the same Act provides that "a ruling or notice of a trial shall be made in the court records, and in other cases, it shall be made by means of delivery of a certified copy of the written judgment or by any other appropriate means."
According to the records, the court below concluded that the defendant's first trial was conducted without any decision such as appointment or rejection decision regarding the request for appointment of a public defender made by the defendant on the first trial date, and concluded the pleadings on the second trial date, and appointed a public defender for the defendant detained after rendering a judgment on the second trial date. Thus, although the defendant submitted the first trial date for the appointment of a public defender, there was no evidence supporting the reasons for the request for poverty, etc.
Even if the court of the original instance finds that the defendant has an opportunity to vindicate the grounds for the claim or that the grounds for the claim are not recognized, it should have made the dismissal decision prior to the pronouncement of the judgment on the last trial and notified the defendant thereof at the latest. However, the court below should have made any judgment on the defendant's request for