beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of
2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal
A. Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the public prosecutor may add, withdraw or change charges or applicable provisions of Acts stated in the indictment with permission of the competent court. In this case, the court shall grant permission to the extent that it does not impair the identity of the facts charged." Thus, if the public prosecutor's application for changes in indictment is within the scope of the identity of the facts charged, the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do375, Apr. 13, 1999); and the outline of permission
The identity of the facts charged, which is the basis of the facts charged, shall be maintained in the same way as it is in the basic point of view. In determining the identity of such basic facts, in mind the functions of the identity of such facts, the defendant's act and the social factual relations shall be based, and the normative elements shall also be taken into account.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080 Decided March 22, 1994 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994). In addition, even if multiple occupational embezzlement is conducted, when it is recognized that the legal interest of damage is a single, the form of crime is identical, and that it is a series of acts resulting from the realization of a single or continuous criminal intent, one crime is constituted as a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do694, Feb. 12, 2009; 2012Do7328, Mar. 27, 2014).