Main Issues
No appeal may be made against a decision to dismiss a request for appointment of a state appointed defense counsel
Summary of Decision
Since the decision dismissing the request for appointment of a state appointed defense counsel is a litigation procedure prior to the judgment, and as long as there is no ground to file an immediate appeal against such decision, a reappeal may not be made.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 33 and 403 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Reference Cases
[Plaintiff-Appellee] 86Mo40 decided September 5, 1986 (Gong1986, 1417)
Re-appellant
Re-appellant
The order of the court below
Busan District Court Order 91Reno1 dated August 27, 1992
Text
The reappeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
The state appointed defense counsel system is recognized only to a person who is in the status of the defendant in the trial proceedings except in the case of deliberation on legality of detention, and the applicant for a retrial cannot request the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel in the proceedings prior to the commencement of retrial, not in the trial proceedings. Therefore, it is proper that the court below dismissed the request for
In addition, since a decision dismissing a request for appointment of a state appointed defense counsel is a litigation procedure before the judgment is rendered, such decision cannot be re-appealed unless there is a ground for filing an immediate appeal against such decision (see Supreme Court Order 86Mo40 delivered on September 5, 1986). There is no reason to see either as a mother or a reason.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)