A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, it could be recognized that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud of KRW 500 million.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the intention of unlawful acquisition and the

B. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the part of the instant indictment stating that “the Defendant inflicted damage on the victim B, on or around May 201, 201,” is invalid as an indictment against the principle of an indictment only. However, inasmuch as the trial proceedings have been initiated in the first instance court without any objection from the Defendant, and the examination of evidence has been completed, and the first instance judgment has been pronounced, the Defendant cannot contest the illegality of the prosecution procedure on the ground of the violation of the principle of an indictment only, and the Prosecutor changed the indictment with the content to delete this part in the lower court.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of an indictment only.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the grounds for the judgment of conviction should clearly state the facts constituting an offense, the summary of evidence, and the application of statutes. In a case where either of them was omitted in the grounds for the judgment while the judgment of conviction was rendered, it constitutes a violation of law that affected the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act and constitutes grounds for reversal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9151, Oct. 14, 20

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court reverses the first instance judgment ex officio on the grounds of the prosecutor’s modification of indictment.