The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court are too 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 selection of the national defense counsel was made in writing on February 13, 2018, which was before the first trial date, and without any decision such as the appointment or refusal of the national defense counsel, and concluded the pleadings on the first trial date, and the second trial date was sentenced on the second trial date. The court of the court of the court below 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 below sentenced the defendant's decision without any notice of the judgment or trial on the defendant's request for the appointment of the national defense counsel (the court of the court below was the judgment date and the defendant did not receive the assistance of the defense counsel at the trial, and the court of the court below did not have the right to receive the assistance of the defendant's defense counsel in violation of each of the above provisions concerning the litigation procedures.