(a) The case holding that there is no error in the measure to dismiss an appeal by correcting a clerical error without destroying the judgment of the first instance, where the appellate court made a correction of a clerical error in the indictment.

(b) The case holding that the court did not commit an unlawful act, such as the exercise of right to explanation or the incomplete hearing, when it judged that the "tender price" in the facts charged was "the construction price which has a possibility of successful tender" and was not contrary to the principle of non-defluence;

A. The case holding that the appellate court did not reverse the judgment of the court of first instance and did not err in the misapprehension of the procedure of the judgment that dismissed an appeal due to correction of the above facts in the criminal facts, since it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the indictment, which can be corrected without the procedure of modification of a bill of indictment, and even if the procedure of modification of a bill of indictment was made in the appellate court, it cannot be said that there was any changes in the facts charged, or the subject of the trial is different from the first instance court.

(b) The case holding that the court's determination of "in tendering procedure" to mean "in tendering procedure" as "the cost of construction work which has a possibility of winning a bid" was made by correcting errors in the indictment and clearly stated the contents of the indictment, and there is no possibility of causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an unlawful act, such as non-exercise of right to

Articles 254 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Oh Byung-ray

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No1566 delivered on January 26, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, it is evident that the name of the tendering company that the defendant was asked for the successful tender from the non-indicted 1 to "construction" is a clerical error in the bill of this case, which can be corrected without the amendment of the bill of indictment. Even if the amendment of the bill of indictment was made in the court below, it cannot be said that there was a change in the facts charged or the subject of the trial is different from the first instance court. Thus, the court below did not reverse the judgment of the court of first instance and cannot be said to have violated the procedure of the decision that dismissed the appeal by correcting the name of the tendering company among the facts charged.

In addition, the lower court’s determination that the “tender price” in the facts charged is the “construction price which has a possibility of winning a bid” refers to the “tender price” and the contents of the indictment are clearly corrected to correct errors in the indictment, and there is no risk of causing substantial disadvantages to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no violation of the principle of improper interest and interest,

2. Examining the evidence employed by the court of first instance by the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles concerning taking property in breach of trust, or omission of judgment

3. Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)