In cases where an application for changes in indictment was filed, whether the court erred in the course of serving only one copy of the indictment on one of the defendant and his defense counsel (negative)

Article 142(3) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that where an application for changes in indictment has been filed, the court shall immediately deliver a copy thereof to the defendant or his/her defense counsel. Since it is apparent in the language that both the defendant and his/her defense counsel do not intend to deliver a duplicate thereof, it cannot be said that there was procedural errors by simply delivering a copy of the written application for changes in indictment only

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 142(3) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012No1555 decided April 17, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 142(3) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that where an application for modification of a bill of indictment is submitted, the court shall immediately deliver its duplicate to the defendant or his defense counsel. Since it is apparent in the language that the purport of delivering its duplicate to both the defendant and his defense counsel is not clear, the duplicate of the written application for modification of a bill of indictment cannot be deemed as having been served only on one of

According to the records, the court below's decision to permit the modification of the indictment against the defendant can be known that the defendant's public defender received the duplicate of the application for the modification of the indictment prior to the second trial date. Thus, the court below did not serve the duplicate of the application for the modification of indictment

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the instant conjunctive facts charged were guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable, and there was no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

3. Whether the pleading is combined or not belongs to the court’s discretion, and thus, it cannot be said that the instant case was not tried together with other cases, and it is not erroneous. On a different premise, the argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)