beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who resides in the same Dong Dong Dong Dongdong, such as the victim C (n, 53 years of age, mental disorders class 2), and that the Defendant has a face of the victim who can do so in a park.
Around 15:00 on April 2017, the Defendant reported a victim who was frighted in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, E Park, and caused the victim’s desire to do so, thereby taking charge of both milblings of the victim by the victim’s own descendants, and “the female fright, one defect, and one smoke” was called as “the female frighter, one defect, and one smoke.”
Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act on the victim with mental disorder 2.
2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion
A. The modified facts charged are different from the facts charged prior to the modification, and the modification of the indictment of this case must be revoked.
B. Although the Defendant had a fact of having a victim several times in E Park, he did not take charge of the victim’s chest or made a sexual statement to the victim.
3. Determination
A. A prosecutor as to the legitimacy of Amendments to Bill of Indictment: (a) the date and time of the instant facts charged was specified in the first order on March 2017; (b) however, at the fifth trial date, he/she applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment by changing the date and time of the facts charged to around April 2017.
This Court permitted this, and accordingly, the subject of the adjudication was changed.
Generally, the date and time of a crime is not a requirement for the specification of the facts charged, and is not a fundamental element of the facts charged. Thus, it is somewhat different to the date and time stated in the facts charged, unless it is a case where the time and time of a crime are likely to disadvantage the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, and it is not a case where each crime committed with a serious relation at the time of the crime, or different time and time in the nature of the case,
The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da14488 delivered on April 23, 2015 is not the same.