All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2024Do4202 Decided July 11, 2024 【Violation of the Narcotics Control Act (Psychotropic Substances)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Purpose and details of the court-appointed defense counsel system stipulated in Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act [2] Where there is any need to allege sentencing factors favorable to the criminal defendant, such as such as the degree of diminished mental capacity due to drug addiction and a strong probability that the criminal defendant’s substantial cooperation in a drug-related investigation will be recognized as a special mitigating factor in sentencing, whether the criminal defendant’s defense right needs to be guaranteed by appointing a court-appointed defense counsel to protect his or her rights (affirmative) [3] In a case where the first instance court found the criminal defendant not guilty, and, in response thereto, the prosecutor filed an appeal, where the appellate court found the criminal defendant guilty by accepting the prosecutor’s appeal against the criminal defendant whose defense counsel was not appointed, whether the appointment of a court-appointed defense counsel should be more actively considered from the stage of a pretrial hearing for the protection of the criminal defendant’s rights (affirmative) [4] Matters to be considered when determining whether the criminal defendant’s defense right needs to be guaranteed through the application of Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act In such a case, where the criminal defendant’s defense right was violated as a trial was examined without any appointment of a court-appointed defense counsel even though a court-appointed defense counsel needed to be appointed, which affected the conclusion of judgment, whether this should be viewed as a violation of Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative) | |
