The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On July 31, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven a motor vehicle with B 10km in the section of about 10km in front of the head of Si/Gu, in a state of under the influence of alcohol content of 0.123% among blood transfusions on July 31, 2016.

2. Determination

A. In accordance with Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a public prosecution is effective against a person other than the person designated by the public prosecutor as the defendant. Thus, the prosecution is effective only against a person designated as the defendant. Thus, even if a person who was cited as the defendant was indicated in the indictment because the suspect stated another person's name as the defendant, it is only an error in the indication of the party, and the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution against a mother, so it cannot be said that the mother becomes the defendant and the victim's identity have the effect of the public prosecution.

Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor revises the Defendant’s indication of the indictment and makes a correction, the prosecution was instituted from the beginning against the employee, and since the prosecution was not instituted against the employee, the court should examine and proceed with a trial against the employee, and in principle, it should not be tried against the employee.

However, even in such a case, in a case where the defendant was served with a summary order and it is discovered that his name has been copied in the course of the trial against the defendant by filing a request for formal trial against the defendant, and where the prosecutor has been in the form or appearance, such as correcting the indictment, and where the prosecutor has acquired the status of the defendant in appearance or appearance, the court should clearly resolve the unstable status of the defendant by applying by analogy of Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the sense that it is clearly stated that the defendant did not have a legitimate institution of public prosecution to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2215, Nov. 28, 1997, etc.).