Whether the request for change in indictment is the obligation of a Justice

Whether or not to request changes in indictment under Article 298 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act belongs to the jurisdiction of the judge.

Article 298(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Do3004 Delivered on February 12, 1974

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No8119 delivered on March 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal is that the court below affirmed the first instance court's judgment which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the charge of this case is limited to publishing or performing copyrighted works by infringing the subject of the crime under Article 71 (1) of the Copyright Act, which is a penal provision, although the court below affirmed the fact that the defendant produced and sold 2,50 the same model of the same model as the model of the common use of commercial calculation in accordance with the master picture, which is included in the master picture in the "Out-of-the-door Use of the Dogggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

In light of the structure of the current criminal procedure and the structure of the facts charged, and the contents of the system, it is reasonable to interpret that the request for the revision of the indictment under Article 298(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act belongs to the jurisdiction of the judge (see Supreme Court Decision 73Do3004 delivered on February 12, 1974). Thus, the court below did not request the revision of the facts charged of this case to the defendant, and it cannot be recognized that there is an unlawful cause such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)