(a) Notice of an application for changes in indictment, or service of a copy of the application for changes in indictment, made only to the defense counsel;

B. Whether it is necessary to suspend the trial proceedings in cases where several criminal cases prosecuted for concurrent crimes are permitted for habitual crimes (negative)

C. The validity of an accusation made pursuant to Article 21(4) of the Preservation and Utilization of Farmland Act by the Myeonhead (=negative)

A. The notification of the application for changes in indictment under Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the service of the duplicate of the application for changes in indictment under Article 142 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is possible to be done by the defendant or his defense counsel. Thus, if the defense counsel received the duplicate of the application for changes in indictment by the prosecutor, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless the duplicate of the above application

B. If the summary of the application for changes in the indictment changes the number of criminal facts prosecuted as concurrent crimes to habitual offenders, it cannot be said that it would result in disadvantage to the defendants' defense rights to the extent that the trial proceedings are suspended, and it cannot be said that the court held the trial without a private defense counsel where the trial date is not postponed for a considerable period after the permission for changes in indictment was made.

C. In order for an administrative agency to exercise the authority of another administrative agency in its own name, there should be legal grounds for delegation of such authority. However, there is no evidence to find out a statute that the authority of the head of the Gun under Article 21(4) of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act may be delegated to the head of the Myeon with respect to the right of accusation by the head of the Gun under Article 21(4) of the same Act. Ultimately, an accusation

(a)Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 4 of Article 21 of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act;

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Byung-il

As shown in the attached Form;

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No855 delivered on May 8, 1985

All of the appeals by Defendant 1, 2, and 3 and prosecutor's appeals by Defendant 2 are dismissed.

From among the days of detention pending trial after the appeal, 45 days for Defendant 1 shall be included in the principal sentence of each Defendants for the same 3 days.

(1) First, we examine Defendant 2 and 3’s amendment of indictment procedures.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the delivery of a copy of the application for changes in the indictment under Article 142 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is allowed to be made by any person, or by the defendant or his defense counsel. According to the trial records of the court below (1453, 1454), it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the duplicate of the above application is received by the defendant 1, 2's attorney-at-law and counsel-at-law's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's counsel's explanation of the above application for changes in the indictment is changed to the extent that the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense right is suspended.

(2) We examine the remainder of the grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 3 and the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel by Defendants 1, 1, and 2. However, according to the timely evidence of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, it is sufficient to acknowledge facts at the time of the original trial against the Defendants. Thus, the lower court’s judgment is just and it cannot be deemed that there was any error of law in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is obvious that the lower court’s judgment cannot be adopted as a legitimate ground of appeal in this case where the sentence of the lower court against Defendants 1 and 2 is sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years.

(3) We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on Defendant 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, under Article 21 (4) of the Act on the Conservation and Utilization of Farmland in this case, an accusation may be raised only with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Do Governor, or the head of Si/Gun, and according to the records, it is evident that the head of Seo-Myeon has filed a complaint with an investigation agency about the violation of the Act on the Conservation and Use of Farmland in this case by Defendant 2 in his own name. Thus, in order for an administrative agency to exercise the authority of other administrative agencies, the delegation of authority must be based on the law, and there is no ground that the head of Seo-Myeon may delegate the authority of the head of Si/Gun to the head of the Myeon with respect to the right of accusation as provided by the Act on the Conservation and Use of Farmland in this case. Accordingly, the prosecution against Defendant 2 constitutes a lawful accusation, and therefore, the procedure of prosecution for violation of the Act on the Preservation and Use of Farmland in this case is invalid because the head of Seo-Myeon could not delegate the right of accusation to the head of Dong.

(4) Ultimately, the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants and the Defendants 2 is without merit. Accordingly, all of the appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal by the Defendants 1 and 3 is to be included in each original sentence, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)

No person who has become a judge of the Supreme Court shall affix his/her signature and seal on overseas business trip.