A defense counsel may not be appointed for poverty or any other reason, but whether the trial proceedings progress without the appointment of a public defender is appropriate for the defendant's request.

When a public defender is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or other reasons under Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appointment of a public defender is limited to the case where the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender under the above Act, and if the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender until the closing of pleadings in the court below, the trial conducted without the appointment of a public defender shall

Articles 33 and 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

E.I.D.

Chuncheon District Court Decision 83No76 delivered on June 9, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Defendant’s state appointed defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records of the evidence of the employment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is clear that the defendant, as at the time of the first trial, has forged one copy of the loan certificate in the name of the defendant, using the seal of the non-indicted 1, who is the husband of the defendant, and the fact that he exercised it is sufficiently recognized. The testimony of the court of first instance witness and the non-indicted 1, who used the seal of the court of first instance, is the intention of the court below or the court of first instance to refuse to believe it. Therefore, even if examining the process of the evidence cooking, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

When a defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or any other reason pursuant to Article 33 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appointment of a defense counsel is limited to the case where the defendant requests the appointment of a defense counsel. According to the records, since the defendant does not request the appointment of a defense counsel pursuant to the above Act until the closing of pleadings in the court below, it cannot be said that there is an error

However, even though the defendant submitted an application for a state appointed defense counsel and an application for the resumption of pleadings to the court below after the closure of pleadings in the court below, the court below rendered a decision to dismiss the defendant's appeal without resumption of pleadings, and even after examining the records, there is no ground to regard the above measures of the court below as an illegal disposition that deprived of the defendant's right to request evidence or right to defense, and therefore there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)