logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.05.29 2015도4280
사기
Text

The judgment below

The conviction part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that where there are grounds falling under any of the subparagraphs, such as when the defendant is detained, a defense counsel shall be appointed without request of the defendant, and Article 156-2(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that in the case of necessary attorney-at-law, if the defendant does not have a defense counsel, the court of appeals shall appoint a defense counsel

Where a defendant appeals, the criminal appellate court basically decides on the grounds for appeal included in the statement of grounds for appeal filed by the defendant or his/her defense counsel within the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal (Article 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Since the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal is calculated from the date on which the notice of receipt of the records of trial is received by the appellate court (Articles 361-3(1) and 361-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), the purport of Article 156-2(1) of the above Regulation on Criminal Procedure that allows a public defender to notify the public defender of receipt of the records of trial

Therefore, in light of the above meaning and importance of the submission of the statement of reasons for appeal in the criminal appellate trial, it is unlawful to render a judgment without giving the opportunity to submit the statement of reasons for appeal due to the failure of the appellate court to appoint a public defender despite its appointment.

According to records on April 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2046, Apr. 23, 2015). 2. The lower court ex officio appointed a state appointed defense counsel for the defendant detained in the Seoul Southern District Court case 2014No1664 (hereinafter “instant case”) and did not notify the state appointed defense counsel of the receipt of the records of trial; the lower court thereafter.

arrow