Public Defender Application Denied for Basic Livelihood Security Recipient... Supreme Court Orders Retrial

by Son Seonhee

Published 31 May.2024 08:25(KST)

The Supreme Court has ruled that a trial conducted after a public defender appointment request by a basic livelihood security recipient was dismissed is unlawful.

According to the legal community on the 31st, the Supreme Court Division 1 (Presiding Justice Seo Kyunghwan) remanded the case of Mr. A, who was sentenced to a suspended prison term for assault, back to the Incheon District Court for retrial.

Supreme Court

In May 2021, on a road in Incheon, Mr. A boarded the front passenger seat of a taxi after Mr. B had already gotten in, and then gestured aggressively and verbally abused Mr. B. When Mr. B's companions, who witnessed the incident nearby, opened the front passenger door and tried to pull Mr. A out by grabbing his arm, Mr. A assaulted them by punching their faces.

The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to 10 months in prison with a 2-year suspension. In the subsequent second trial, Mr. A submitted evidence proving that he was a beneficiary under the National Basic Livelihood Security Act and requested the appointment of a public defender. However, in August last year, the second trial court dismissed Mr. A's request and proceeded with the trial with only the defendant present, ultimately dismissing Mr. A's appeal.

The Supreme Court found that the trial conducted without a public defender violated the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Supreme Court stated, "The lower court dismissed the defendant's request for the appointment of a public defender and proceeded with the trial thereafter," adding, "This resulted in the defendant being unable to exercise effective defense rights with the assistance of a public defender, which affected the judgment and constitutes an error."

It further pointed out, "There is sufficient reason to recognize that the defendant falls under the category of those unable to hire a lawyer due to poverty, and there is no record indicating otherwise," and emphasized, "Unless there are special circumstances, a decision to appoint a public defender should have been made so that the appointed lawyer could participate in the trial."