The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. 항소이유의 요지 고소인은 원심 법정에서 피고인이 이 사건 차량의 앞쪽과 오른쪽을 툭툭 쳤다고 진술하였고 이 사건 공소사실도 이 사건 차량의 앞쪽 오른쪽이 손상되어 있는 것으로 되어 있었는데, 고소인은 차량수리내역에 왜 기타 부위가 포함되어 있는지에 관한 질문을 받고 피고인이 이 사건 차량의 전체를 돌면서 쳤다고 말을 바꿨고 그 후 검사가 공소장변경허가신청을 하였으며, 원심은 공소장변경을 허가하였다.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case by reliance on the defendant's statement that is not reliable because the defendant's statement about the pro-Japanese and damaged father is not consistent even though the defendant did not damage the vehicle in this case by changing the vehicle in pro-con.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that permission for changes in indictment is unlawful, 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 the permission of the court. In this case, the court shall grant permission to the extent that it does not harm 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 court shall grant permission

The identity of the facts charged, which is the basis of the facts, shall be maintained in the same way as it is in basic respect.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14097, Sept. 12, 2013). The record of this case is followed by the public prosecutor, and the “the first public prosecutor” is the defendant, around December 02:30, 2013, in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, with the e.g., under the influence of alcohol, and the e.g., the lower part of the back part of the EMW vehicle that the victim D operated.