Cases of an inevitable attorney-at-law, where the court has been amended without the presence of a counsel;

A. Although the prosecutor made one of the applicable provisions of Article 98(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which falls under the case requiring a defense counsel (Article 282 and Article 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the court failed to appoint a defense counsel ex officio in the above case without a private defense counsel, and only the defendant and the prosecutor present at the trial date, and subsequently tried the case without a defense counsel and rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant, it violates the provisions of Article 8 of the former Constitution (amended by December 26, 62) and Article 10(4) of the same Constitution.

B. It is erroneous for the court to revise the case without a defense counsel in examining and determining the necessary attorney-at-law case.

Articles 282 and 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 66No189 delivered on April 1, 1966, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 66No189 delivered on April 1, 1966

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

In light of the records and records, the prosecutor stated the applicable provisions of the indictment in Article 10 of the National Security Act as stated in the former sentence of the presiding judge of the court below, and it is clear that the prosecutor made a statement of the applicable provisions of Article 10 of the National Security Act Article 2 of the same Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act as stated in Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to death penalty, imprisonment for life or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than seven years, and thus, the court below did not appoint a defense counsel ex officio on the part of the case where there is no private defense counsel, and the defendant and the prosecutor present only at the trial date, and tried the case without a defense counsel and sentenced the defendant guilty.

However, Article 8 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and the State shall have the duty to guarantee the fundamental human rights of the people to the maximum extent possible," thereby declaring the fundamental principles on respect for human rights of the people. One of the specific examples of the realization of such principles, "When a person is arrested or detained, the criminal defendant shall have the right to assistance of counsel immediately and if the criminal defendant is unable to obtain counsel by himself/herself in cases prescribed by the Act, the State shall have the right to assistance of counsel." Article 10 (4) of the Constitution declares that Article 282 and Article 283 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall have the right to receive assistance of counsel in accordance with these provisions of the Constitution. When there is no counsel in cases falling under death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for a short term of three or more years, the court shall appoint a counsel ex officio and the court shall not revise the law without the counsel without the explanation of the above provisions and the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be reversed.

Therefore, without any need to decide on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)