Court Rejecting Public Defender Request... Supreme Court Rules "Illegal as It Affected Judgment"

Court: "Result Preventing Effective Exercise of Right to Defense"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that proceeding with a trial without a defense attorney on the grounds that the defendant did not submit the necessary documentation when requesting the appointment of a public defender is illegal.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) announced on the 5th that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which sentenced Mr. A to six months in prison with a one-year probation in his appeal trial for charges including hit-and-run causing injury under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court.

Mr. A was prosecuted for driving a motorcycle without insurance, violating a traffic signal, causing an accident, and leaving the scene without taking any action in April of last year.

In the first trial, Mr. A submitted documentation regarding his financial situation and received assistance from a public defender, resulting in a sentence of six months imprisonment with a one-year probation.

The issue arose during the second trial. The second trial court rejected Mr. A's request for a public defender and proceeded with the trial on the grounds that he did not submit supporting documents at the time of the request. Ultimately, the second trial court upheld the first trial's decision, sentencing Mr. A to six months imprisonment with a one-year probation.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out that although Mr. A had submitted documentation proving his financial situation during the first trial, the second trial court rejected the request for a public defender without any special circumstances.

The court stated, "The lower court's decision to proceed with the trial while dismissing the request for the appointment of a public defender violated the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, resulting in the defendant being unable to exercise effective defense rights, which affected the judgment and constitutes illegality."