beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On October 21, 201, the Defendant: (a) around 00:20 on October 21, 201, received KRW 25,00 per hour from Co-Defendant D, the owner of a singing practice room business; (b) together with three persons, including singing practice room E, and provided entertainment by singing and dancing.
2. Determination
A. In accordance with Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a public prosecution takes effect on persons other than the defendant designated by the public prosecutor, so the prosecution takes effect only on the persons designated by the public prosecutor as the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant was indicated as the defendant in the indictment because the suspect has cited another person's name as the defendant.
Even if this is merely an error in the indication of the party, and the prosecutor brings a public prosecution against the mother, so it cannot be said that the mother will be the defendant and the victim will have the effect of the public prosecution.
Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor revises the indication of the accused in the indictment and makes a correction, the prosecution against the accused was instituted from the beginning, and since the prosecution against the accused was not instituted, the court should examine and proceed with a trial against the accused, and in principle, it is not necessary to judge the accused in principle.
However, even in such a case, in a case where the defendant was served with a summary order and requested for formal trial against the defendant, his name and appearance are discovered in the course of the trial against the defendant, and where the prosecutor corrected the indictment and acquires the status of the defendant in form or appearance, the court should make clear resolution of the unstable status of the defendant by applying mutatis mutandis Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the sense that it is clear that the defendant did not have a legitimate institution of public prosecution to the defendant, thereby making it clear that the defendant did not have a legitimate institution of public prosecution.
Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on January 19, 1993