logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2013.09.12 2012도14097
컴퓨터등사용사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the public prosecutor may, with permission of the competent court, add, delete, or change charges or applicable provisions of Acts stated in the indictment. In this case, the court shall grant permission to the extent that it does not impair the identity of the charges." Thus, if the public prosecutor's application for changes in indictment is within the scope of the identity of the charges

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do375, Apr. 13, 1999); and the outline of permission

The identity of the facts charged, which is the basis of the facts charged, shall be maintained in the same way as it is in the basic point of view. In determining the identity of such basic facts, in mind the functions of the identity of such facts, the defendant's act and the social factual relations shall be based, and the normative elements shall also be taken into account.

On March 22, 1994, the court below rejected the prosecutor's application for permission to amend the indictment for each of the charges of this case, and rejected the prosecutor's appeal on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts.

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s rejection of the prosecutor’s application for modification of indictment.

First of all, according to the records, the original facts charged in this case (Fraud by use of computers, etc. and Digital Signature Act) are as follows. The defendant obtained through the defendant the consent of the defendant that the defendant can use the terms and conditions loan within the limit of five million won from E, which is the cause of monthly insurance premium of the same life-based company, within the limit of one million won. However, around March 18, 2010, the defendant was 10 million won using E's authorized certificate.

arrow