The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a court recognizes a minor criminal facts than the criminal facts prosecuted within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged, if it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's defense in light of the progress of the trial, it can recognize the minor criminal facts ex officio without changing the indictment.

As such, the facts charged can be recognized as aiding and abetting the criminal facts charged as a common principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004; 2012Do2628, Jun. 28, 2012). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Origin of Agricultural and Fishery Products, where the Defendant conspired with 12 owners of restaurant businesses, including J, and K, under the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, with the view to selling the country of origin of the nivers of “foreign mountain” under the disguised manner as “domestic origin”, on the ground of the violation of the Act on Origin of Origin of Agricultural and Fishery Products, even though the said merchants knew that the said merchants would sell the nivers of “foreign mountain” supplied by the Defendant to Korea, thereby facilitating the sale of the said merchants’ country of origin by providing the said merchants with freezing goods of “foreign mountain,” and even if the Defendant’s exercise of defense right without any substantial action.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on modification of indictment and the establishment

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