All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1886 Decided May 9, 2013 【Embezzlement ? Fraud】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether the court may not provide a state appointed counsel if it does not acknowledge the necessity for protection of rights, in a case that does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative), and whether a trial without a state appointed counsel violates Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act where it is not acknowledged that it infringed Defendant’s defense right or thereby affected judgment (negative) [2] Where the first instance court appointed a state counsel although not mandatory, sentenced Defendant to a one year imprisonment with prison labor, but did not order confinement from the court room; and the court below dismissed Defendant’s appeal since he did not submit the grounds of appeal within the statutory period after submitting the petition of appeal without requesting a state appointed counsel, the case holding that the judgment below is legitimate in conducting a trial without a state appointed counsel, and it is hard to see that the court below’s failure to appoint a state counsel infringed upon Defendant’s defense right or thereby affected the judgment |
|
