Whether the identity of the charges of violation of Article 39-2 (1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act and the charges of violation of Article 39 of the same Act is identical (negative)

The facts charged prior to the alteration are related to the act of manufacturing or assembling an automobile without obtaining the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the form of the automobile, and the act of violating the provisions of Article 39-2(1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and the altered facts charged are related to the act of operating an automobile of a device not in compliance with the security standards, and is charged as an act violating the provisions of Article 39 of the same Act. Thus, each facts charged prior to the alteration of the indictment cannot be

Articles 39 and 39-2(1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 83No27 delivered on April 15, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the original facts charged against the defendant is that the defendant's vehicle is manufactured or assembled without the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the defendant, despite having obtained the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, was removed from the body wheeler's seat, which is co-defendant's co-defendant's possession, and then assembled the 4-wheeled vehicle with a height of about 10% of poppy to the back wheeler's seat so that he can use the string. On the other hand, the summary of the facts charged that the prosecutor changed in the appellate trial is that the above 4-wheeled vehicle is operated with a height of about 20 meters from the end of the above industry to the front wheeler's fire fighting road.

In light of the above facts charged prior to the change, it is clear that the act of manufacturing or assembling an automobile without obtaining the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the form of the automobile, and it is the purport of the indictment for the act of violating the provisions of Article 39-2 (1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and the changed facts charged are about the operation of an automobile for devices that do not meet the security standards, and it is clear that the indictment was made for the act of violating the provisions of Article 39 of the same Act. In comparison with each of the facts charged prior to and after the amendment of the indictment, it cannot be deemed that the basic facts are the same. Thus, the court below is justified in holding the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the prosecutor's modification of the indictment was not

However, the original indictment is stipulated in Article 39 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act as applicable provisions to the facts charged prior to the modification, but it is acceptable to the judgment below that it is a clerical error in Article 39-2 of the same Act in comparison with the contents of the indictment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that the court below's rejection of amendment to indictment was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity of the facts charged. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)