(b) The case holding that there is an error of finding the facts constituting the crime not stated in the indictment without the procedures for modifying the indictment;

B. In contrast to the facts stated in the indictment, if the facts of the crime acknowledged by the court below are reduced in the recovery of the bribery period and the total amount of the bribery amount, but it stated the individual facts of the crime constituting the blanket crime not specified in the indictment, and if it exceeds the amount stated in the indictment even in the daily amount of the accepted bribery or the total monthly amount, it is erroneous in the deliberation of the facts which did not seek the adjudication.

1. According to the records and the judgment of the court below, when the defendant is in office as the chief of the Ministry of National Defense's office of compensation for the state compensation case, and from the non-party to the public prosecution for the state compensation claim filed by the Dong from the non-party to the Ministry of National Defense, he received the amount provided by the Dong 28 times during the original market period by considering budgetary convenience so that he can promptly receive compensation. Since several bribery facts continue to be a single criminal intent between the same other party and the same party and the legal benefits are the same, it is reasonable to view the above series of bribery acceptance acts of the defendant as a single comprehensive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 78Do2545 delivered on December 13, 1978). In this purport, it is just and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as a comprehensive crime.

2. As to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the fact that the Defendant received KRW 54,00,000 from the Nonindicted Party in connection with his duties from the end of January 1, 1972 to the end of December 1974 the sum of KRW 1,50,000 per month from the Nonindicted Party and KRW 36 times per month, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the court below acknowledged the crime that the Defendant received KRW 27,050,000 in aggregate over 25 times as of the date of the judgment between June 29, 1972 and July 26, 1974 without the amendment procedure of the indictment.

Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the facts charged shall be stated in the indictment, and Article 298 of the same Act provides that the time, place and method of the crime shall be specified, and that the addition, withdrawal or modification of the facts charged or the applicable provisions of the Act stated in the indictment shall not be prejudicial to the identity of the charges. This is interpreted as limiting the scope of trial by the court and guaranteeing the exercise of the defendant's right to defense. The facts charged in the indictment and the facts charged by the court below shall be deemed to be identical to all those stated in the indictment, and it shall be reduced for a period, recovery and total amount of the charges recognized by the court below, but it shall not be stated in the indictment, and it shall not be permitted that the facts charged by the individual facts constituting the single crime are reduced without being stated in the indictment, and it shall not be permitted that the total amount of the charges charged exceeds KRW 2,500,000 and KRW 7,500,000 and shall not be accepted in two or three times a month, so it shall not be recognized that the above facts of defense can not be accepted in excess of KRW 10.

Therefore, the court below's decision that did not request a trial to be judged as the object of a crime without undergoing the procedure to change the indictment to the part which is not specified in the indictment as above. The court below's decision that did not request a trial to be judged as the object of a crime is erroneous. The illegality is in a concurrent relationship between other crimes and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and it affected the original judgment with a single order. In this regard, the decision on the remainder of the grounds for appeal cannot be reversed because it is reasonable in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)