The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below was just in finding a not guilty of the modified facts charged (excluding the part concerning the charge) of this case on the ground that there is no proof of the crime, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence of confession as alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, the modification of the indictment under Article 298 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be permitted only when the court files an application before closing the hearing of the public trial, unless there are special circumstances such as the occurrence of the cause for the modification after the closing of argument, unless the identity of the facts charged is disturbed.

Therefore, where a public prosecutor applies for the amendment of a bill of amendment after the court has closed the trial lawfully, it is not necessary to permit the amendment of a bill of amendment by resumption of the trial, and this is also the case where the public prosecutor applies for the amendment of a bill of amendment

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision that the court below failed to resume the pleading and grant permission for modification of an indictment in this case where the prosecutor submitted an application for modification of an indictment due to the reasons prior to the closing of argument without any special circumstance after closing the pleadings lawfully and designating the date of sentencing. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the modification of an indictment, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

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