The case holding that it is necessary for the court to amend the bill of amendment in order to recognize the time of joining as the court around May 1986 the facts charged that the defendant joined the police organization in the middle of May 1985.

The case holding that it is necessary for the court to amend the bill of amendment in order to recognize the time of joining as around May 1986 the facts charged that the defendant joined a police officer in the middle of May 1985.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

A

Defendant

B, Attorneys C et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 92No2406 delivered on September 17, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: the defendant joined Emph, a organized violence organization organized by Non-Indicted D on May 1, 1985, and the court below found the defendant guilty without following changes in the indictment procedure, on the ground that the defendant's establishment time of Emph and admission time of Emph, such as the first trial, are not around May 1985, but around May 1986. However, the court below found the defendant guilty without following changes in the indictment procedure, on the ground that the defendant's admission time of Emph , a criminal organization, might be identical to the criminal facts of Emph , a criminal organization, at any time and time, and there is a concern that the defendant will give substantial disadvantages to the defendant's exercise of his defense right.

2. In general, since the date and time of crime is not a requirement for the specification of the facts charged, the court may recognize the date and time different from the written indictment without going through the procedures for the modification of indictment. However, although the difference between the date and time is not simple mistake, each crime of which the date and time vary due to the nature of the case is compatible with separate facts, and it is reasonable for the court to find the defendant guilty of temporary facts that are different from the date and time written in the facts charged is likely to substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his right of defense, it shall undergo the procedures for the modification of indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1824, Oct. 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Do723, Jun. 11,

According to the records, the defendant was dissatisfied with the fact that the police did not have joined the above criminal organization on the date and time stated in the facts charged until the court below previously held the court below's trial. The court below, during the trial, submitted evidentiary documents to the prosecutor, including the purport that the above criminal organization was formed in around May 1986 and the defendant joined the above criminal organization as an executive member, and examined whether the defendant was admitted to the above criminal organization on the same date and time as stated in the facts charged, and found the defendant guilty of temporary criminal facts different from the facts charged without following the procedures for changing the indictment. Thus, in this case where it is evident that the court below did not regard the above temporary difference as a simple error, the court below's finding the defendant as guilty without examining the date and time of admission other than the date and time stated in the indictment, could not be permitted because it might be able to have any substantial disadvantage in exercising his right of defense, by giving an example.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amendment of indictment or the scope of adjudication, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.