A. The personal scope of a prosecution in a case where another person's name is copied and whether it is necessary for the prosecutor to amend a bill of indictment or permission of the court in a case where the defendant's indication of indictment is corrected (negative)

B. In the case of the above “A”, the court’s measure following the prosecutor’s correction of the Defendant indication

(c) In case where the principal has requested a formal trial against the summary order, the measures taken by the court against the principal and the principal;

A. Even if the defendant was found to be the defendant because the defendant's name was distorted, it is merely an error in the indication of the party and the prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the defendant, so it cannot be said that the defendant is the defendant and the defendant has the effect of the public prosecution. In this case, the prosecutor must correct the defendant's indication by correcting the personal information of the indictment, and it is not necessary to take the procedures for changing the indictment pursuant to Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is not a change in the indictment to correct the mistake in the indication of the defendant, it is not necessary to take the procedure for correcting the indictment pursuant to Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. In the above Paragraph A, in a case where the prosecutor corrected the indication of the defendant in the indictment and did not correct the conspiracy relationship, the prosecution is instituted in the name of the person to be taken out, and the method of prosecution is null and void in violation of Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court shall render a judgment dismissing the prosecution, and if the prosecutor corrected the indication of the defendant, the prosecution against the person to be taken out was instituted from the beginning, and the prosecution against the person to be taken out was not instituted, so the court shall not, in principle, deliberate on the person to be taken out and decide on the person to be taken out.

C. In a case where the defendant's name and appearance were discovered in the course of a formal trial against the defendant by filing an application for a formal trial against the defendant in a summary order, and where the prosecutor revises the defendant's name and appearance, such as correcting the indictment, and acquires the defendant's status in form or appearance, the court shall apply Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the defendant so that the defendant can clearly resolve the unstable status of the defendant by applying mutatis mutandis Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the defendant, and even if the defendant applied for a formal trial, the defendant's indication stated in the indictment has not yet been served on the defendant, so the prosecutor may correct the defendant's indication stated in the indictment. Accordingly, the court may correct the defendant's indication of the summary order, and if the correction is served on the defendant with the original copy of the original summary order, it shall be deemed that there is a legitimate service of the summary order in this case, and if no request for formal trial has been made within the prescribed period, the summary order shall be finalized.

(a) Articles 248 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 327 subparagraph 2(b) of the same Act; Article 254 (3) of the same Act;

A.B. (C) Supreme Court Decision 92Do490 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 1776). (B) Supreme Court Decision 81Do182 delivered on July 7, 1981 (Gong1981, 14179). Supreme Court Decision 84Do1610 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1764). (b) Supreme Court Decision 82Do2078 delivered on October 12, 1982 (Gong1982, 1126), Supreme Court Decision 85Do756 delivered on June 11, 1985 (Gong1985, 1036). (c) Supreme Court Decision 91Do1689 delivered on September 10, 191 (Gong1969, Nov. 25, 196)

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Daegu District Court Decision 92No1148 delivered on September 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the prosecutor brought an action against the non-indicted on March 28, 191, which was summaryly filed by the defendant. However, the facts charged are about the non-indicted, and since the non-indicted used personal information, such as the defendant's name, date of birth, resident registration number, dwelling, and permanent domicile at the investigation stage, the prosecutor indicted the non-indicted as the defendant, and the court also issued a summary order as it is. The defendant who received the summary order requested formal trial and the above facts were revealed in the formal trial procedure. The prosecutor requested the defendant to request formal trial and the prosecutor filed an application to change the personal information of the above summary order from the defendant to the non-indicted. The first instance court made a decision to correct the above summary order as the non-indicted. The first instance court sent the above summary order and the decision of correction to the non-indicted, and the prosecution of this case does not extend to the defendant, and the prosecution of this case is invalid in violation of the provisions of the law, and the court below maintained it.

2. In accordance with Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a public prosecution is effective against other persons than the person designated by the public prosecutor as the defendant. Thus, the prosecution is effective only against those designated as the defendant. Thus, even if the defendant was indicated as the defendant due to the fact that other persons' names are copied, it is merely an error in the indication of the party, and the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution against the mother, so it cannot be said that the mother will become the defendant and the victim's identity have the effect of the public prosecution.

Therefore, in such a case, the prosecutor must correct the identification of the defendant by correcting the personal information of the written indictment, which does not change the indictment since it does not change the mistake of the defendant in the indication of the defendant. Therefore, it is not necessary to take the procedures for changing the indictment in accordance with Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the permission of the court is not required.

3. However, in a case where the prosecutor revises the indication of the defendant and does not immediately publish the conspiracy, a public prosecution shall be instituted in the name of the person to be taken out in the appearance of the defendant, and the method of public prosecution shall be null and void in violation of Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court shall render a judgment dismissing the public prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do2078, Oct. 12, 1982; 85Do756, Jun. 11, 1985; 85Do7566, Jun. 11, 1985).

However, even in such a case, in a case where the defendant is discovered in the course of a formal trial against the defendant by filing an application for a formal trial against the defendant in a summary order, and where the prosecutor is aware of his name and appearance in the course of a trial against the defendant, such as correcting the indictment, and acquires the status of the defendant in form or appearance, the court shall apply Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act by analogy of Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act to resolve the unstable status of the defendant by clearly resolving the unstable status of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do182, Jul. 7, 1981; 91Do1689, Sept. 10, 1991).

5. As to the instant case, even though the public prosecutor's summary indictment was made by expressing the Defendant as the Defendant, the name of the Defendant is merely vague, and such indictment is not effective against the Defendant, and it extends to the Nonindicted Party as the mother.

In addition, even if a summary order has been issued and the defendant applied for a formal trial after receiving it, it shall be said that there has been no service of the summary order to the true defendant, and the prosecutor may correct the description of the defendant stated in the indictment. Accordingly, the court may correct the indication of the defendant, and if it is served on the non-indicted, who is the mother, along with the original copy of the summary order, it shall be deemed that the summary order is a lawful service, and if no request for formal trial has been made within the prescribed period, it shall be deemed that the summary order has become final and conclusive.

However, since the defendant filed an application for formal trial against the original summary order and is in progress with ordinary procedure of trial, the defendant has the status of the defendant in form or appearance and has de facto continued a lawsuit, so it is right to dismiss the public prosecution as a court.

6. The arguments are that the court's decision to dismiss public prosecution against the defendant who did not make a trial against the non-indicted non-indicted 1, who did not prosecute the defendant, is illegal, but it cannot be accepted in light of the above legal principles. There is no reason to discuss.

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