The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. 범죄사실 피고인은 B, C과 공동으로 2016. 6. 5. 06:18 경 수원시 팔달구 D에 있는 피해자 E(20 세) 근무의 'F' 주점에서, B이 피해자에게 귓속말을 하였는데 피해자가 알아듣지 못하였다는 이유로, B은 손으로 피해자의 뒷목을 조르고 손바닥으로 피해자의 얼굴을 1회 때려 피해자가 착용하고 있던 안경의 알이 빠지게 하고, 피고인은 손으로 피해자의 목을 잡아당기고 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴을 1회 때리고, C은 손으로 피해자의 가슴을 밀쳤다.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with B and C.

2. Determination

A. In accordance with Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a public prosecution is effective against a person other than the person designated by the public prosecutor as the defendant. Thus, the prosecution is effective only against a person designated as the defendant. Thus, even if a person who was cited as the defendant was indicated in the indictment because the suspect stated another person's name as the defendant, it is only an error in the indication of the party, and the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution against a mother, so it cannot be said that the mother becomes the defendant and the victim's identity have the effect of the public prosecution.

Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor revises the Defendant’s indication of the indictment and makes a correction, the prosecution was instituted from the beginning against the employee, and since the prosecution was not instituted against the employee, the court should examine and proceed with a trial against the employee, and in principle, it should not be tried against the employee.

However, even in such a case, a person who received a summary order and applied for formal trial with regard to it is discovered in the course of the hearing against the person who is the mother, and the prosecutor’s correction of indictment, etc., has been de facto continued and has the status of the defendant in form or appearance.