beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding fraud in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to maintain the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules
2. In general, the date and time of the crime is not the basic element of the crime, since the date and time of the crime is not the element of specifying the facts charged, the time and time are somewhat different.
It does not require the procedures for the amendment of the indictment, but it is not necessary to take the procedure for the amendment of the indictment. However, if the time of the crime is long at the time of the crime and there is a serious relation to the sex of the crime, it would be detrimental to the defendant's defense. As such, the identity between the charges before and after the amendment of the indictment shall be determined based on specific facts by taking into account the social factual and normative factors, such as the compatibility of the two charges, and the purport of the amendment of the indictment system shall also be taken into account in order to ensure the appropriate exercise of the state punishment rights and guarantee
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10771 Decided May 14, 2009, etc.). In addition, in a case where it is deemed that there is no likelihood that a substantial disadvantage may be inflicted on the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense of defense in light of the progress of the trial within the extent consistent with the facts charged, the court may, ex officio, recognize facts constituting a crime different from those stated in the indictment,
Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6433 Decided March 24, 2006