beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the suspended sentence of KRW 2,00,000 (the fine of KRW 2,000 for Defendant A, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months, and 2 years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable
2. Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the court shall appoint a defense counsel if the defendant is unable to appoint a defense counsel because of poverty or any other reason," and Article 17(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that "if the defendant requests the appointment of a defense counsel pursuant to Article 33(2) of the above Act, the court shall appoint a defense counsel without delay, and Article 38 of the same Act provides that "if the defendant is requested to appoint a defense counsel pursuant to Article 33(2) of the above Act, the court shall do so by means of a written judgment prepared by the judge," and Article 38 of the same Act provides that "if the ruling or order is notified, it may be recorded in the court records without preparing a written judgment," and Article 42 of the same Act provides that "In the court records, the pronouncement or notification of a judgment shall be made by means of a service of a certified copy of the
According to the records, the court below held that Defendant A’s request for the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on May 24, 2016, which was made by Defendant A in writing on May 24, 2016, did not make any decision such as the appointment or refusal of the appointment or rejection, etc., and concluded the pleadings on the second court date, and rendered the judgment on the third court date. Thus, even though the above Defendant submitted the request for the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on May 24, 2016,
Even if the court of original instance finds that the above defendant has an opportunity to vindicate the grounds for claim or that the grounds for claim are not recognized, it should have made the dismissal decision prior to the pronouncement of judgment on the last day of trial and notified the above defendant. The court below should have notified the above defendant.