B. The case holding that the accusation cannot be an weak ground for appeal as a mistake in the fact-finding process

B. The accusation refers to a criminal charge committed by the investigative agency to urge the prosecution, and it does not need to point out the criminal, and even if the criminal who was designated in the accusation is not a true criminal, the effect of the accusation does not affect the effect of the accusation. Thus, even if the complainant knew the person who committed the farmland diversion act to Gap and filed the accusation against Eul as the defendant, the accusation has the effect of the accusation against Eul as long as Eul committed the farmland diversion

C. The judgment of the court below which erred in a separate crime even though the act of farmland diversion and received a summary order prior to the act of farmland diversion constitutes a single comprehensive crime is attributable to the fact that it was erroneous in the incomplete hearing in the process of fact-finding as to whether the act of farmland diversion and the act of farmland diversion constitute a separate crime. Thus, such a ground for appeal is not an weak ground for appeal.

1. The summary final appeal may be filed only when the facts recognized by the judgment of the court of first instance are not applicable, or when there is an error in the application of the law, or when there is a abolition, alteration, or amnesty after the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 372 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The term "when there is an error in the application of the law" refers to the case where the court of first instance renders a mistake in the application of the law on the premise that the facts recognized by the judgment of the court of first instance are met (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do156, Mar. 22, 198).

2. On the first ground for appeal

The issue is that the court below's decision to dismiss a public prosecution without a legitimate accusation under Article 21 (4) of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act against the defendant is illegal, and it eventually leads to the error of fact-finding by the court below as to the existence of the condition of lawsuit and the misapprehension of the legal principles, which led to a mistake in the application of the law as a result of a mistake in the application of the law. Thus, according to the records of this case, the court below's erroneous judgment that the person who committed the farmland diversion act of this case was the non-indicted sexual abortion, who is the representative of the Do Food and Agriculture Co., Ltd., and it can be known that the defendant made the above sexual abortion as the defendant. Thus, the defendant's accusation is not necessary to point out the criminal facts and urge an investigation agency to prosecute it, and it does not affect the validity of the accusation even if the person designated in the accusation was not the criminal. Thus, even if the defendant's accusation against the above defendant, even if the defendant's act of farmland diversion of this case did not affect the validity of the farmland diversion (see Supreme Court Decision 429383, etc.

3. On the second ground for appeal

The issue is that it is unlawful that the judgment of the court below judged the act of diversion of farmland prior to the act of diversion of farmland in this case as a single comprehensive crime and found the defendant guilty of the act of diversion of farmland in this case as a separate crime. However, this is nothing more than the defendant's intention to commit the above two acts of diversion of farmland in this case, or it was erroneous in incomplete deliberation in the process of finding facts as to whether it was separate from each other. Thus, such a reason is not an weak ground for appeal under the above provision of the law.

4. Therefore, the non-permanent appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)