(b) Whether the court has the duty to grant permission where the application has been filed along with an application for resumption of pleading after the closure of the trial;

B. As to the changes in the indictment made before the closure of the trial, the court must permit the changes in the indictment to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the facts charged. However, as to the changes in the indictment made by the prosecutor after the lawfully notified of the trial by the final date of sentencing, even though it was made together with the application for resumption of pleadings, there is no obligation to permit them to resume the trial closed by the court and resume the proceedings closed.

1. For the purpose of Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the term "two or more persons shared" means a case where two or more persons jointly have an accomplice relationship, and they have committed a crime by recognizing and using the same opportunity at the same place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do176, Jan. 26, 1982; 81Do176, Jun. 23, 1981; 81Do176, Jun. 23, 1981). Thus, the court below comprehensively considered the following evidence and reported that the defendant is whned by the victim and the non-indicted person, etc., and reported that the defendant's face and head part of the victim's face and head part were 1 and 2 times, and it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant participated in the injury or assault of the non-indicted person, etc. at the same time, and it does not violate the legal principles as to the scope of joint assault or joint crime, and the court below's decision did not err by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The court shall permit the modification of the indictment which was made before the closure of the trial to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the facts charged. However, with respect to the modification of the indictment which was made by the prosecutor after the closing of the trial lawfully and the notice of the trial by the date of sentencing, even if it was made together with the application for the resumption of pleadings, it is not obligated to permit the modification of the indictment by resumption of the trial which was closed by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do564,84Do90 delivered on May 15, 1984). Thus, the court below rejected the prosecutor's application for the modification of indictment which was made after the closing of pleadings, and there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)