In a case that is not a necessary attorney-at-law case, but a public defender should be appointed under Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, whether or not the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender after the lapse of the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal (negative), and whether or not the date when the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal was commenced (=the date when the defendant received the notification

Article 156-2 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure concerning "the appointment of a public defender and receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records" provides that "where the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender from the defendant before the deadline for submitting the appellate brief is not timely filed, the court shall decide on the notification of the receipt of the notification, and if the public defender is appointed, the court shall decide on the notification of the receipt of the notification." However, there is no separate provision regarding "where the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender from the defendant after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief expires," and even if the defendant appointed a public defender before the deadline for submitting the appellate brief after the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records, it is unnecessary to again notify the public defender of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records, compared with calculating the date on which the defendant receives the notification of the notification of the notification of the appellate brief from the date on which the defendant received the notification of the notification of the appellate brief to the public defender under Article 33 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Articles 33(1), (2) and (3), 361-2, 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 156-2(1) and (2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Song Ho-ho

Cheongju District Court Decision 2012No1156 decided March 21, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 361-2 and 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the appellate court has received the records, it shall immediately notify the appellant and the other party thereof, and when a counsel is appointed before such notification, the appellant or the defense counsel shall also submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification. Therefore, where a private defense counsel is appointed after the receipt of the notification of the notification of the notification of grounds for appeal to the defendant, the defense counsel is not required to make the same notification. Even if the private defense counsel is appointed after the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the grounds for appeal to the defendant, even if the notification was given to the private defense counsel, the period for submission of the grounds for appeal should be calculated from the date of receipt by the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do166, Sept. 6, 196; 65Mo34, Aug. 25, 1965).

Meanwhile, Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, which provides for “the appointment of a public defender and the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records,” provides that “Where there is no defense counsel for the case requiring the presence of a public defender under Article 33(1)1 through 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act,” and “where a public defender is appointed pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court shall appoint a defense counsel without delay and shall notify the receipt of the trial records (Article 33(1)).” On the contrary, in relation to the appointment of a public defender pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court shall make a decision on the case without delay where the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender before the time when the appeal is not filed (Article 33(2)).” In this case

As such, Article 156-2 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure concerning "the appointment of a public defender and the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records" shall be decided on the case where "the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender from the defendant before the deadline for submitting the appellate brief is not timely filed," and the public defender shall be notified of the receipt of the trial records when the public defender is appointed. However, there is no separate provision on the court's decision or the notification of the receipt of the trial records when "the defendant requests the appointment of a public defender from the defendant after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief is not timely filed," and as seen above, even if the defendant appointed a private defense counsel before the deadline for submitting the appellate brief after receiving the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records, it is not necessary to again notify the public defender of the notification of the notification of the appellate brief from the date the defendant received the notification of the notification of the appellate brief to the public defender, and it is not necessary to regard the notification of the notification of the receipt of the trial records again to the public defender again within three months after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief.

2. According to the records, the Defendant submitted a petition of appeal on November 22, 2012, and served a written notification of the receipt of the trial record on December 29, 2012, and the Defendant did not submit the written notification of the receipt of the trial record to the lower court by January 18, 2013, which is the 20th day from the delivery date of the written notification of the trial record, and the Defendant did not state any grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed an application for appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on February 14, 2013, which is the date after the first trial date of the lower court, and the lower court accepted the said application and appointed a state appointed a state appointed defense counsel on February 15, 2013, and the state appointed a state appointed defense counsel on March 4, 2013 stated unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal on March 4, 2013, and thereafter, on the

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the allegation of unfair sentencing submitted by the Defendant’s public defender at the lower court is subsequent to the submission period for the grounds of appeal and does not constitute a legitimate grounds of appeal. Therefore, the lower court’s decision that did not consider the above assertion as the object of the trial is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by infringing the Defendant’s right

In addition, the argument that the appeal was dismissed due to the failure to submit the statement of grounds for appeal, but the Supreme Court requests a new decision once does not constitute grounds for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)