The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

1. The “right to have the assistance of counsel” guaranteed under the Constitution refers to the right to have the sufficient assistance of counsel, and in certain cases, the State’s duty to guarantee the defendant’s right to have the assistance of a public defender shall include the obligation to supervise the public defender’s duties and to take procedural measures necessary for the defendant to have the substantial assistance of the public defender in the criminal procedure.

Meanwhile, in light of the meaning and importance of the preparation and submission of the statement of grounds for appeal in the appellate trial proceedings, when a public defender has been appointed in the appellate trial proceedings, the defendant's right to receive sufficient assistance from a public defender shall be guaranteed as well as in the trial proceedings and in the process of preparing and submitting

Therefore, if a public defender appointed for the defendant fails to submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, it shall be deemed that the court of appeals has not provided sufficient assistance required for the defendant, and in such a case, if the appeal of the defendant is dismissed in accordance with the main sentence of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the absence of any reason attributable to the defendant, it shall be deemed that the above measures are against the purport of the Constitution that guarantees the defendant the right to receive sufficient assistance from the public defender and

Therefore, even if the defendant and the public defender did not submit all the grounds for appeal within the statutory period, the court of appeals shall have previously held that the public defender is responsible for the failure to submit the grounds for appeal.