In addition to the application for resumption of the hearing after the closure of the hearing, the amendment of the indictment

The court shall permit changes in the indictment prior to the closure of the trial to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the facts of the public prosecution. However, with respect to changes in the indictment of the public prosecutor which comes to the time after lawful notice of the trial closing and the date of pronouncement of the judgment, even if it comes to the time together with the application for resumption of pleadings, there is no obligation to permit changes in the indictment after the court resumess the trial closed.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Do673 Decided June 20, 1967

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Sang-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2622,83No521 Decided January 30, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. After examining the interrogation protocol prepared by judicial police officers, interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, and contents of the protocol of trial as to the non-indicted person in the defendant's indictment case, the defendant's statement was in short, despite the defendant's request from the defendant for selling and arranging the sale of the article. However, the defendant stated that the article was stolen from the amusement park, such as the delivery to the government and the requisite mountain in the same dubcheon, and that the article was stolen from the defendant, and that the statement alone did not transfer from the defendant that the article was stolen at the temporary location of the entry in the facts charged in this case, it cannot be found guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below's determination that the facts charged cannot be acknowledged only by the evidence alone is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, since it is merely an attack against the judgment of value as to the contents of the above Kim-ro's statement.

2. As to the changes in the indictment made before the closing of the trial, the court must permit the changes in the indictment to the extent that does not harm the identity of the facts charged. However, as to the changes in the indictment 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, the court does not have the obligation to permit them to resume the trial closed by the hearing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Do673, Jun. 20, 1967). It is without merit on the premise that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing as to the transportation of stolen goods.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)