The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant acquired the business of “C” general restaurants in the Gwangju Mine-gu B and the second floor (hereinafter “instant main points”); and (b) the Defendant believed and believed the business after receiving a notice of non-prosecution disposition after hearing the public prosecutor’s notice of non-prosecution disposition regarding the business of the said main points; and (c) the Defendant made a mistake that his act does not violate the law.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport of changing the phrase “within September 27, 2018” of the facts charged in the instant case to “before May 2, 2019”, and the subject of the judgment was changed upon permission by the court.

As long as the aforementioned additional charges are so-called so-called business crimes, which are repeatedly committed under the same manner as the previous charges in the same manner as a single crime, inasmuch as the prosecutor first prosecutes a part of the crime, which is a single comprehensive crime, and then indicted for the remaining crimes, and conducted a joint trial by combining them, it is found that each crime committed before and after the process of a joint trial is constituted a single crime, even though there was no procedure to revise the indictment due to a single comprehensive crime.

In addition to and supplement to the indictment which constitutes a single comprehensive crime or the submission of the indictment for an additional indictment, a statement of intent to add or supplement the omission in the indictment which was first prosecuted.

However, the court can judge the whole criminal facts charged before and after the court, and it is not necessary to dismiss the public prosecution on the part of the additional indictment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do15356, Jan. 26, 2012). At the same time, a single sentence should be determined and sentenced. Therefore, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, such;