beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a defense counsel shall be appointed under paragraph (1) of the same Article. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that “Where the court deems it necessary for the protection of rights in consideration of the age, intelligence, level of education, etc. of the defendant, it shall appoint a defense counsel to the extent that it does not go against the defendant’
“.......”
The appointment of a national defense counsel under Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be limited to cases where the court deems it necessary to protect the rights of the defendant, and it shall not be required to appoint a defense counsel in all criminal cases.
In the instant case that does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the first deliberation and decision, and measures, which were conducted without a national defense counsel, are justifiable, by deeming that the court, at its discretion, does not need to appoint a national defense counsel to protect the rights of the accused.
The first instance court's failure to appoint a national defense counsel has influenced the conclusion of the judgment by infringing the defendant's right of defense.
shall not be deemed to exist.
The first trial date is to be implemented with a grace period of not less than five days after the delivery of the indictment to the defendant, but even if the defendant violated this, the defect is cured if the defendant respondeds to the trial without raising an objection (Article 269(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). While the first trial court in this case was erroneous in the course of the failure to serve the first trial date, the defendant did not raise an objection, so the defect in the procedure is cured and has no influence on the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do3297, Feb. 17, 1995; 85Do1041, Sept. 23, 1986). In addition, the original court rendered that the defendant received the written notice of receipt of the trial records by the court below before the lapse of 20 days from June 30, 2017.