In the case of a necessary attorney-at-law, the private defense counsel has been absent due to the lack of notification of the date of trial to the private defense counsel, but whether measures taken during the trial are appropriate (affirmative)

Even if the first trial date is in progress without the presence of the private defense counsel due to the failure to notify the date of the trial for the private defense counsel appointed in the case requiring a defense counsel under Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the public defense counsel appears on the trial date, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of trial without a defense counsel. In addition, if the private defense counsel continues to attend the second trial date and exercises the defense right, it cannot be said that the private defense counsel deprived the private defense counsel

Articles 282 and 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim J-jin et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90No624 delivered on May 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. The court below is identical to the theory that the court below proceeded with the first trial date without the presence of a private defense counsel because the private defense counsel against the defendant was appointed prior to the first trial date and the notification of the date was not made, and it is evident in the records that the public defense counsel against the defendant was present at the court on the above trial date. Thus, the court below's error of trial without the defense counsel in this case falling under the requisite attorney-at-law case under Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be found, and the defendant's private defense counsel against the defendant has been continuously exercised his right to defense after the second trial date of the court below, and it is evident in the records that the court below deprived the private defense counsel of

2. According to the evidence in the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, criminal facts against the defendant are duly recognized, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of facts against the defendant. In addition, according to the records, according to the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character, character, intelligence, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means of crime, result, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court of first instance against the defendant is just and unreasonable, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit against the court

3. The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)