The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The withdrawal of the indictment by the method of the modification of the indictment is possible only to some of the facts charged within the extent that the identity of the indictment is recognized. Thus, in cases where several facts charged in the indictment are not identical and are in substantive concurrent relations with each other, the procedure for partial cancellation of the indictment should not be followed, and in cases where one of the several facts charged in substantive concurrent relations withdraws from the indictment or where there is a request by the public prosecutor who completely excludes the defendant from the indictment subject to the indictment, it is clear that this is the purpose of revoking the indictment, even if the request does not have the form of revocation of the indictment, it shall be deemed as cancellation of the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 8Do67, Mar. 22, 198, etc.). According to the records, the court below should have dismissed the prosecution on Jan. 17, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do67, Mar. 22, 198).

However, the court below did not render a judgment dismissing the public prosecution against this part.