The case where the judgment of the court below which tried by amending the necessary defense case without a defense counsel was reversed by violating the Acts and subordinate statutes.

Of the facts charged against the defendant, since the punishment prescribed in Articles 3(1) and 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act is limited to not less than three years, this case constitutes a necessary defense case stipulated in Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, with respect to this case, the appellate court also did not amend or examine the case without a defense counsel pursuant to Article 370 of the same Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis, but the court below tried the case by amending the case without ex officio without appointing a defense counsel for this case where there is no defense counsel. Since the litigation procedure conducted in the illegal trial procedure is null and void, the judgment of the court below is unlawful, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Articles 282, 370, and 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do577 Decided July 19, 1966

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Han-young (Korean National Assembly)

Daejeon District Court Decision 95No167 delivered on June 23, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Before determining the grounds of appeal, we examine it ex officio.

Of the facts charged against the defendant, the punishment provided for in Articles 3(1) and 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, which are applicable provisions of the same Act, shall be limited to not less than three years, so this case constitutes a necessary attorney-at-law case provided for in Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, the appellate court, as the appellate court, shall not revise or examine the case without defense counsel pursuant to Article 370 of the same Act, which is applicable provisions of the same Act

Nevertheless, in this case where there is no private defense counsel, the court below tried the case by amending it without ex officio without appointing a defense counsel, and the litigation procedure conducted in such unlawful trial proceedings is null and void. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not reversed because the litigation procedure of the court below is an unlawful crime affecting the judgment in violation of the law, and it cannot be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)