The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 18(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that the court shall revoke the appointment of a public defender in a case where the accused or suspect is appointed by the public defender. However, the court shall revoke the appointment of a public defender in consideration of the fact that the assistance of the public defender is not necessary when the accused or suspect who has been appointed by the public defender appoints a private defense counsel. Thus, even if the accused or suspect who has been appointed by the public defender did not immediately revoke the appointment of the public defender after the appointment of the private defense counsel, it cannot be a ground for violation

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do6557, Jul. 11, 2017). In addition, the issue of resumption of closed pleadings belongs to the court’s discretion. As such, even if the lower court revoked the appointment of a public defender after the closing of pleadings and did not resume closed pleadings for additional pleadings by a private defense counsel, it cannot be deemed unlawful. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the right to participate by the defense counsel and the right of the defendant to receive assistance by the defense counsel

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3511 Decided May 16, 2014). Therefore, the final appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.