(a) Procedures for withdrawing objects of prosecution for part of several facts charged in a concurrent relationship;

(b) Measures to be taken by the court where the prosecutor has applied for changes in indictment containing the purpose of revocation;

A. Withdrawal of the facts charged by the method of Amendments to Bill of Indictment is possible only to some of the facts charged within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized. Thus, in order to withdraw part of the facts charged in the indictment where several facts charged are not identical and there are substantive concurrent relations with each other, the method of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment should not be followed.

B. Where there is an application for modification of a bill of indictment made orally in the courtroom by the military prosecutor who withdraws all the facts charged in relation of substantive competition, and the purport of revoking the indictment in part of the indictment is clear, even though the application for cancellation of the indictment does not have the form of application for cancellation of the indictment, the public prosecution shall be dismissed, deeming it as cancellation

a.B. Articles 255 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 297 and 355 of the Military Court Act. Article 328 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 383 of the Military Court Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys White-gu et al.

The Army High Military Court Judgment 91No53 delivered on April 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

Each defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the timely evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each crime of the theory of lawsuit is just, and it cannot be said that there is any error of misconception of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles due to a violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing. Therefore

However, the withdrawal of the indictment in accordance with the method of the modification of indictment can be limited to only some of the facts charged within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized. Thus, in cases where several facts charged in the indictment are not identical and there are substantive concurrent relationships with each other, the method of the modification of indictment is not the way of the modification of indictment, but the procedure for the partial cancellation of the indictment should be followed in order to withdraw part of the indictment. In addition, if there is a request for the modification of indictment by oral statement in the court room of the military prosecutor who withdraws the whole facts charged in a substantive concurrent relationship with each other, if it is obvious that this is to revoke the part of the indictment, even if it does not meet the form of application for the cancellation of the indictment, it shall be deemed to be the cancellation of the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Do67, Mar. 22, 198;

According to the records, the prosecutor made an oral application for changes in the indictment in the court of first instance, and stated that "the offering of a bribe" and "5-Ba-Ba" among the names of the crimes stated in the indictment in this case in accordance with the court's permission for changes in the indictment. However, according to the contents of the indictment, the part concerning the offering of a bribe among the facts charged is only one of the facts stated in "paragraph 4," and it is stated that the direct examination of the defendant is not conducted only with regard to that part of the protocol, and it seems that the prosecutor's application for changes in the indictment with respect to the whole withdrawal of the facts charged in relation to the offering of a bribe in this case which are in substantial competition with other facts charged, it seems that the purpose of the whole revocation of the indictment is that the prosecutor's application for changes in the indictment was to revoke the indictment in this part. Thus, the court should have made a decision to dismiss the bribe in this case, and even if the above application

However, in this case where only the defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, even though the prosecutor did not render a judgment of dismissing the public prosecution on the above part of the offering of bribe for which the revocation of the public prosecution was declared by the prosecutor, it is sufficient to dismiss the public prosecution on the above part of the offering of bribe, and it is not necessary to reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground that this constitutes an illegal cause which affected the judgment. Accordingly, the argument about this

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)