Even a defendant who assaulted medical staff and damaged facilities in an emergency room must have the right to assistance from a court-appointed attorney guaranteed if the defendant cannot hire counsel due to poverty, the Supreme Court ruled. Although the first trial panel had admonished that the defendant "should have their bad manners fixed," the Supreme Court found that the appellate court violated the right to defense by proceeding after denying the defendant's request for a court-appointed attorney.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Su-yeon) said on Apr. 30 that it overturned the lower court's fine in the appeal of a case against a person identified as A, who was indicted for violating the Emergency Medical Service Act, and sent the case back to the Busan District Court.
A was brought to trial on charges of shouting profanities at and raising their voice toward the emergency department chief while receiving treatment for a left calf wound in the emergency room of a hospital in Saha District, Busan, at about 7:25 a.m. on July 22 last year. A also faced charges of damaging emergency medical facilities by swinging a fist, and of assault for forcefully yanking the emergency chief's right elbow when the chief tried to restrain A. In the process, treatment of another emergency patient was also was found to have been impeded.
In the first trial, A was sentenced to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, and ordered to perform 120 hours of community service. The first trial panel said, "From 2006 to 2021, the defendant disrupted social order with violence, drunk driving and the like, yet repeatedly received lenient fines," adding, "However, far from becoming a law-abiding citizen, the defendant caused various disturbances in an emergency room and interfered with treatment for emergency patients where every second counts."
It added, "This time, it is only right to fix the bad manners so that the national legal order is not defied again." However, the fact that A belatedly paid 1.1 million won to the victim and reached a settlement was reflected in the sentence.
The appellate court reached a different conclusion. Considering that the victim reached a settlement with A and did not want punishment, the appellate court found the first-instance sentence of a suspended prison term to be heavy and reduced it to a fine of 6 million won.
The Supreme Court, however, found procedural problems in the appellate proceedings. Before the appellate trial, A applied for a court-appointed attorney, saying A was a basic living recipient under the National Basic Living Security Act. The appellate panel denied the request and then proceeded with the hearing with only A present.
The Supreme Court determined there was ample room to view A as falling under a case where A could not retain private counsel due to poverty. The court held, "The lower court brought about a result in which the defendant could not effectively exercise the right to defense with the assistance of a court-appointed attorney."