When the statute of limitations for the crime B expires in cases where the indictment to add the crime No. B to the preliminary indictment after the prosecution is instituted for the crime No. 1

In the case of a modification of a bill of indictment which adds the criminal facts which have been prosecuted for criminal fraud, there is no complaint on the identity of the facts charged in the indictment, so whether the statute of limitations for the crime of breach of trust has expired or not shall be based on the original time of the prosecution, and shall not be based on the time of the modification of the indictment.

Article 249 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Sung-sung (Law Firm Cho Sung)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 69 High Court Decision 20167 decided December 3, 1980

The summary appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the theory of the lawsuit is that the prosecution was instituted as a crime of fraud on May 30, 1969, but there was a modification of the indictment to add the conjunctive charges to the facts charged on December 3, 1980, which later, the court granted permission and tried to determine the guilty of the breach of trust. However, since the crime in this case was completed on January 15, 1969, the crime in this case has already been completed on December 3, 1980, the statute of limitations for the crime in this case has already expired after the lapse of five-year statute of limitations as the crime in breach of trust.

2. However, in the case of a case where there is no complaint on the identity of the facts charged in the indictment as stated in the indictment, even with the modification of indictment, it is reasonable to interpret that the decision of the court below which did not regard the completion of the statute of limitations as the basis for the modification of the indictment, such as the theory of the lawsuit, should be determined on the basis of the point of time of the indictment. In this regard, the decision of the court below which did not regard the completion of the statute of limitations is just

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the non-permanent appeal.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)