In the case of a necessary attorney-at-law case, the court shall take measures to appoint a private defense counsel by the defendant who does not appoint a public defense counsel without any justifiable reason, but the court has already failed to file an appellate brief for the defendant.

The right of a defendant to have the assistance of a defense counsel shall be protected in a case where the court does not appoint a public defender in a case requiring counsel under Article 33 (1) 1 through 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act or where the court requested the appointment of a public defender under Article 33 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and did not make a decision on the request without any justifiable reason, even if the defendant has already appointed a defense counsel, but the defendant does not have sufficient time to prepare and submit the statement of grounds for grounds for grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of appeal for the defendant. Accordingly, in such a case, the court shall give the private defense counsel an opportunity to prepare and submit the statement of grounds for grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds of grounds for grounds of appeal within the prescribed period counting from the date when the private defense counsel

Articles 33(1) and (2), 282, 361-2, and 361-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Attorney Park Jong-soo

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008No656 Decided November 20, 2008

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 5 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court. All appeals by Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed.

1. Judgment on Defendant 1, 3, and 4’s grounds of appeal

The court below decided that Defendant 1, 3, and 4 did not submit the grounds for appeal within the period for submitting the legitimate grounds for appeal, and did not state the grounds for appeal even in the petition of appeal, and did not find the grounds for ex officio investigation in the part against the above Defendants among the first instance judgment, and did not dismiss the appeal by the above Defendants, but did not make a decision pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and sentenced Defendant 2 to a judgment en bloc at the time of rendering a judgment. In light of the records, this decision of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal, and in this case, the above Defendants did not submit the grounds for appeal as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the crime of interference with business, the legal principles as to self-defense and legitimate act, etc., just as in the case where they did not appeal (see, e.

Therefore, Defendant 1, 3, and 4’s grounds of appeal are without merit.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 5 and state appointed defense counsel

The appellate court in receipt of the record shall, without delay, appoint a defense counsel for the case requiring a defense counsel under Article 33 (1) 1 through 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act where the defendant does not have a defense counsel for the necessary attorney-at-law case, and notify him of the receipt of the trial records. In the case where a defense counsel is appointed pursuant to the request for the appointment of a public defender under Article 33 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act which was made before the date of application for the appellate brief, and where a public defender is appointed pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, notify the counsel of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the trial records. The court shall ensure that the defendant's right to receive the assistance of the defense counsel is protected (Article 156-2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). Since the above right of the defendant is a necessary attorney-at-law case under Article 33 (1) 1 through 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the defendant has already been appointed and submitted within the prescribed period of 200 years from the notification of the notification of the notification.

According to the records, the court below issued notification of the receipt of the trial record on June 5, 2008 when the defendant 5 was not appointed a public defender over 70 years of age at the time of the filing of the appeal in this case and the necessary defense under Article 282 and Article 33 (1) 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and delivered the notification of the receipt of the trial record to the above defendant on July 18, 2008. On the other hand, on July 18, 2008, after the defendant was over the period for filing the appeal, the defense counsel appointed by the above defendant on July 18, 2008, and thereafter, the notification of the receipt of the trial record was sent to the private defense counsel of the above defendant.

According to the above legal principles, since the case constitutes a necessary attorney-at-law case falling under Article 33 (1) 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant's private defense counsel of the above defendant shall be deemed to have been legally submitted within the submission period of the grounds for appeal. However, the court below rendered a judgment dismissing the above defendant's appeal on the grounds that the defendant did not have any legitimate grounds for appeal submitted within the submission period of the grounds for appeal without determining the grounds for appeal by the private defense counsel of the above defendant. The part of the judgment below against the above defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the submission period

3. Judgment on Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

The court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment after compiling the evidence legitimately admitted by the court of first instance. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the temporary union meeting of this case merely interferes with the worship of Non-Indicted 1's lave (hereinafter "non-Indicted 1's lave"), as alleged by the defendant, and as long as Non-Indicted 2 was carrying out the temporary union meeting of this case with prior approval from Non-Indicted 3's lave who actually occupied and managed the main party at the time of this case, even though Non-Indicted 3 did not legally have management authority over the main party of this case, it cannot be deemed that Non-Indicted 2's temporary union's (title 2 omitted)'s act of interference with business cannot be deemed as not being a business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business, and in light of the legal principles as to the relation between the use of this case by Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 3's lave, the court below's determination that the Defendants' act of obstruction of self-defense by entering the court of first instance or the facts of this case.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s ground of appeal is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant 5 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining Defendants’ appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)