The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 18(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that when a defendant or a suspect is appointed a defense counsel, the court shall revoke the designation of the national defense counsel. However, the court shall revoke the designation of the national defense counsel in consideration of the fact that when the defendant or the person under consideration selected by the national defense counsel appoints the national defense counsel, the assistance of the national defense counsel is not necessary. Thus, the court shall revoke the designation of the national defense counsel. Thus, the court did not revoke the designation of the national defense counsel immediately after the defendant or the person under consideration selected by the national defense counsel appoints the national defense counsel.

Even if there are no other special circumstances, this can not be a ground for violation of the procedure that affected the judgment.

In addition, since the issue of resumption of a closed pleading falls under the court's discretion, the court below failed to resume the pleading for additional pleadings by a private legal counsel appointed after the closure of pleadings.

Even if it is illegal, the right to participate in the defense counsel and the right of the defendant to have the assistance of the defense counsel have been infringed.

Examining the records and records, the victim attorney at the lower court did not file an application for the statement of opinion under Article 6(1) of the Rules on the Examination and Trial of Sexual Crimes, etc. and the Protection of Victims (hereinafter “Rules on the Examination of Sexual Crimes”). However, at the first trial of the lower court, the victim attorney at the victim’s attorney at the presiding judge’s inquiry at the first trial of the lower court only responded to the victim’s answer that “the victim was asked for an agreement from the defendant, but the victim did not have an intention to agree,” and the presiding judge at the lower court did not order the victim attorney to submit a written statement in lieu of the statement of opinion under Article 8(1) of the Rules on the Examination of Sexual Crimes.

Therefore, it is true.