1. Whether the punishment may be applied by applying Article 350 of the Criminal Act, notwithstanding Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, with respect to the attacking act committed at night;

2. Whether a criminal may be punished under the name of the criminal who has applied for change of the name of the crime by filing an application for change of indictment in writing after the closing of argument.

1. Despite Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, it is erroneous that the applicable provisions of the indictment to be written in the indictment concerning an act of conflict committed at night are punished for the crime of conflict under Article 350 of the Criminal Act;

2. Where the name of a crime is added by making an application for change of indictment in writing after the closing of argument, the court shall, if the application is reasonable, resume the pleading and render a judgment after permitting it;

Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350 of the Criminal Act, Articles 298 and 305 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Do673 delivered on June 20, 1967 (Kakadd 3578; Supreme Court Decision 298Do2712 delivered on October 23, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 11103; Supreme Court Decision 23Do320 delivered on June 20, 196; Supreme Court Decision 301Do141 delivered on June 20, 196; Court Gazette 526No8730 delivered on June 26, 197)

Defendant

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 72Gohap256 decided May 1, 201

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The fifty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the original sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the facts of the first to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the court below's decision, which did not constitute a crime as a living together with the victim after the divorce, but there is a mistake of mistake of facts which found the defendant guilty; second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the court's decision, it is unfair to impose liability for the defendant's conviction; third to the judgment of the court below, the sentence against

First of all, the first and second points of the defendant's appeal are examined in light of the records and the various evidences duly adopted by the court below (in particular, the defendant led to the confession of the crime in the court below). In light of the records, the defendant's principal facts of the case of the court below can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no illegality as pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court below.

However, in applying the law to the defendant's judgment, the court below, after ex officio, found that the so-called 4 facts in the judgment of the court below are clear by the records of the court below that the court below accepted the name of the crime in accordance with the modified indictment without permission for resumption of pleading and modification thereof, and therefore, in this regard, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is reversed and the judgment of the court below is not justified, since the court below added the name of the crime to the written indictment in writing after the closing of argument at the court below, and the name of the crime should be added. Thus, it is obvious by the records of the court below that the court below accepted the name of the crime in accordance with the modified indictment without permission for resumption of pleading and modification thereof. The defendant's assertion of improper sentencing is reversed and the judgment of the court below is not justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a member is again decided after pleading.

The summary of criminal facts and evidence against the defendant recognized as a party member is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act provides that if there is no prosecution or prosecution for the crime of intimidation of 1 and 2 as stated in the judgment below against the defendant, the crime of intimidation of 3 as stated in the judgment shall be subject to Article 3(1), Article 2(1), Article 283(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act. Article 366 of the Criminal Act provides that if there is no prosecution or prosecution for the crime of intimidation of 5 as stated in the judgment against the defendant, the crime of intimidation of 6 as stated in the judgment below shall be included in Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act. Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act provides that if there is no prosecution or prosecution for the crime of intimidation of 3 as stated in the judgment below, the crime of intimidation of 7 as stated in the judgment below shall be included in Article 307(2) of the same Act, Article 307 of the Criminal Act provides that the victim shall be punished with no less than 7 of the Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)