beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while going beyond the scope of the assembly reported in this case, conspired with other participants gradually or implicitly, to make it impossible or considerably difficult for them to pass on the road in this case.
It is reasonable to view it.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on common school offenders.
2. Determination
A. In the appellate trial, the prosecutor of the amendment of the indictment at the appellate trial applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “not scheduled and not reported” among the charges of No. 4-6 of the judgment of the court below was not scheduled, and that “In front of the Western Roter in Jongno-gu Seoul on the same day at around 16:52 of the same day” was changed to “In front of the F hotel in Jongno-gu Seoul on the same day” at around 17:06 of the same day, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “in front of the F hotel in Jongno-gu Seoul on the same day” was permitted by this court.
However, although the form of Amendments to Bill of Indictment is withdrawn, the subject of the trial was changed to the extent that it affects the defendant's defense right.
It is difficult to see that the substance is simply correct the clerical error or error in the indictment, and it is reasonable to see that it falls under the correction of the indictment.
Therefore, since the subject of this court's trial is still the same as the subject of the first trial, it shall be judged as it is without any reversal on the ground of changes in indictment.
B. We examine the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records. The court below's decision that judged that the defendant, only a general participant, was not sufficient to recognize as being in a joint principal relation with the participants who did not agree with the general participant, is just and acceptable. Thus, the court below's decision is justified. Thus, it is so argued by the prosecutor.