The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the defendant in mistake of facts received L through the son, and did not participate in the above lending act in the name of the purchase price of the vehicle, the defendant did not constitute a joint principal offender in fraud.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "Where a defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel due to poverty or any other reason, the court shall appoint a defense counsel if the defendant requests."

In addition, the case where a public defender is appointed pursuant to Article 33 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be open without a defense counsel.

(Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The court of original instance requested the court of original instance to appoint a public defender based on Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court of original instance decided to allow the change of the indictment of the public prosecutor after opening the seventh trial date for the defendant without going through the procedure of selecting a public defender separately in the absence of the defense counsel of the defendant while the defendant was absent from the court of original instance, and immediately after completing the trial, it is recognized that the judgment was pronounced

As such, in a case where a public defender has been appointed, procedural acts conducted without the assistance of the defendant shall be null and void, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to this court's judgment, and this is examined.

At least two decision-making on the assertion of mistake of facts is not required by law in relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, but there are two or more persons in collusion.