The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The reasoning of the appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (the suspended sentence of a fine of two million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Where the defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel on account of poverty or other reasons, the court shall appoint a defense counsel if requested by the defendant.”

Article 17(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that “When a request for the appointment of a national defense counsel is made pursuant to Article 33(2) of the above Act, a national defense counsel shall be appointed without delay. Meanwhile, Article 38 of the same Act provides that “a national defense counsel shall be appointed by a court decision prepared by a judge.”

Provided, That where a ruling or order is notified, it may be made by entering it in a protocol instead of preparing a written judgment.

“The pronouncement or notification of a judgment” under Article 42 of the same Act shall be made by means of court records in court records, and in other cases, by means of delivery of a certified copy of court records or by any other appropriate method.

“.......”

According to the records, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's request for the appointment of a national defense counsel made in writing on March 8, 2017, which was before the date of the first trial without any decision such as the appointment or refusal of the defendant's request for the appointment of a national defense counsel on March 8, 2017, the date of the first trial, the conclusion of the pleadings on the first trial date, and the second trial date. The court of the court of the original instance should have made a decision of dismissal prior to the pronouncement of the judgment at the last trial date and notified the defendant thereof. The court of the court of the original judgment rendered a judgment without any notice of the defendant's request for the appointment of a national defense counsel. The court of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the legal procedure and affected the conclusion of the judgment by infringing on the defendant's right to receive the assistance of his defense counsel

3. Conclusion.