Request for review by a lawyer appointed to request the review and its propriety;

If a person who has been pronounced guilty appoints a lawyer to request a retrial, it is reasonable to interpret that the counsel can request a retrial.

Article 492 of the former Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Attorney Hong-sik

Daejeon District Court and the Seoul High Court of the second instance

Revocation of the original judgment

The request for retrial is dismissed.

A request for retrial may not be made independently by a defense counsel or his/her representative who has received a written verdict of conviction. However, there is no reason that a defense counsel cannot make a request for retrial independently by a defense counsel. However, the original decision does not include a person who has received a written verdict of conviction listed in Article 492 of the former Criminal Procedure Act. It is explained that it does not include an agent himself/herself nor does it permit an agent of a defense counsel to conduct a request for retrial except as otherwise expressly provided for in the former Criminal Procedure Act. However, it is sufficient that the defendant who received a written verdict of conviction is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below to request a retrial again, so it is not necessary to make a request for retrial in his/her name or select an attorney as his/her representative, and it is not necessary to do so by a defense counsel again in his/her name and to distinguish it from that of a defense counsel again in his/her name, and therefore, it cannot be said that the original decision should be revoked as an agent of the defendant who submitted a written request for retrial.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that a defense counsel appointed by the court of first instance can make a request for the retrial after comparing Article 493 of the former Criminal Procedure Act with those listed in Article 492 of the latter Criminal Procedure Act, even if the defendant's act was conducted for the benefit of the person who was pronounced guilty, since it is nothing more than 444 of the former Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be seen that the defendant's act of taking measures to kill the defendant's family members after the lapse of a certain period of time after submitting a letter of appeal. On the other hand, in the appellate brief, it is sought to cancel or change the legal and practical points of the original decision by submitting a statement of reasons for the retrial, and thus, it is not necessary to appoint a defense counsel and allow him to do so (in particular, the defendant at the time of re-examination) as stated in the above Article 492 of the former Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's act of taking measures to kill the defendant as a defense counsel at the time of the initial request for retrial, and therefore, it is not necessary to establish a new method of trial and other evidence for the defendant's act of retrial.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) and Justice Han Jin-jin, Justice Han-jin, Justice Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Justice)