When Amendments to Bill of Indictment and the judgment standard for the statute of limitations are completed.

Where there is a change in the indictment, the completion of the statute of limitations shall be determined at the time of the initial indictment, and it shall not be based on the time of changes in indictment.

Articles 249 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Do3245 Delivered on February 10, 1981

Defendant

Attorney Shin Shin-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 81No2721 delivered on February 2, 1982

Supreme Court Decision 81Do1944 Delivered on September 22, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant’s ground of appeal

Judgment on the assertion of mistake shall be made.

In full view of the evidence presented in the judgment of the court of first instance as well as the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, each criminal facts of the defendant are legally recognized. Thus, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts in the process of fact-finding, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant's statement in the prosecutor's office was not made voluntarily or was made under the circumstances that suspect the

2. Determination on the part on the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired in the grounds of appeal

Article 99 of the Criminal Code provides that the statute of limitations for the general crime as provided in Article 99 of the Criminal Code has 10 years, and the part which a prosecutor originally indicted as a espionage in the original trial after remand was requested to amend a bill of indictment for the general crime shall have already been ten years since the act of the defendant was committed. However, the prosecutor's amendment to the indictment was merely changed as the same facts which constitute a espionage crime, and there is no complaint as to the identity of the facts charged in the indictment since there is no complaint, it shall be determined at the time when the initial indictment was instituted, and it shall not be at the time when the amendment to the indictment was made (Article 80Do3245 delivered on February 10, 1981). Thus, the decision of the court below which judged that the statute of limitations has not expired, and it is just and there is no reason to agree with the opinion.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the defense counsel and the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant

The record reveals that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is extremely unfair even if considering all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing and all the circumstances cited in the arguments, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the above facts.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)