The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 298 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the public prosecutor may add, delete 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 the identity of the charges is not disturbed."

The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social factual relations, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in the basic point of view. However, when determining the identity of such basic factual relations, the defendant’s act and the social factual relations should be based in mind, and the normative elements should also be taken into account.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the facts charged or on the modification of an indictment, on the grounds that the same is not recognized as identical to the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the refusal of a prosecutor’s application for modification of an indictment or on the modification of an indictment on the grounds that the same is not recognized.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.