The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Determination on the legitimacy of Amendments to Bill of Indictment (Ground of appeal No. 6)

A. Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The 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 the identity of the charges is not disturbed.”

The above provision is the purport that the court should grant permission unless the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment does harm the identity of the facts charged.

The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social factual relations, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in basic terms. 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7777 Decided June 24, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do13528 Decided February 9, 2012, etc.) B.

According to the records, the facts charged before and after the amendment of the indictment against the defendant are identical to each other in the basic facts of the crime of breach of trust that the defendant issued F with the illegal solicitation and the money in relation to the brokerage of the export contract of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) that took place between 2010 and 2012 (hereinafter “C”) on two occasions. However, the above facts charged merely are more concrete or modified as the circumstance, method, date, etc. causing the above crime through the amendment of the indictment.

In the same purport, the first instance court decision, which received the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment on September 20, 2017, is lawful.