The judgment below

Among the accused cases, the part of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part of the case of attachment order.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. In a case where there is a difference in the statutory punishment due to the change of the facts charged according to the procedures for changing the indictment as to the crimes of Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be deemed that the period of the statute of limitations for the changed facts charged is the basis for the period of the statute of limitations. As such, if the statutory punishment for the changed facts charged at the time of prosecution is based on the statutory punishment for the facts charged at the time of prosecution, a judgment of acquittal

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2902, Aug. 24, 2001). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies where the statute of limitations has already expired at the time of prosecution, based on the statutory penalty for the facts that the court may recognize without changing the indictment.

Of the facts charged in this case, the statute of limitations has expired after the lapse of seven years from the date of termination of the crime (Article 249 (1) 3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) since the statutory penalty for the crime of rape was imprisonment with prison labor for at least three years, and the statute of limitations has expired (Article 249 (1) 3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act). According to the records, the public prosecution in this case was filed on September 10, 2004 after the rape crime was committed against the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), and it was filed on August 30, 2012 after the lapse of seven years from September 10, 2004 when the prosecution in this case was instituted. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the statute of limitations has already expired for the crime of rape at the

Nevertheless, the lower court, without making any decision on the completion of the statute of limitations, found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.