Whether it is illegal that the court does not demand the prosecutor to change the indictment

The court's issue of whether to demand the prosecutor to change the indictment belongs to the court's discretion, so it cannot be deemed illegal because the prosecutor did not demand the change in the indictment.

Article 298(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2211 delivered on October 11, 1983 (Gong1983,1687) 85Do1092 delivered on July 23, 1985 (Gong1985,1221) 90Do129 delivered on October 26, 1990 (Gong190,2475)

A and one other

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 92No662 delivered on December 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the defendants did not have any false statement in each on-site investigation and written opinion because the application for permission to damage each of the forest of this case is not the counter farmland but the "land where standing timber or bamboo has been temporarily lost" as stipulated in Article 2 of the Forestry Act, and it cannot be deemed that the defendants made any false statement in each on-site investigation and written opinion. Even if the above application site is the counter farmland, the defendants could not be deemed to have any false perception about the contents of each on-site investigation and written opinion, and found the defendants not guilty. If we examine the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was any error of finding any erroneous facts against the rules

In addition, since the facts charged against Defendant A are clearly stated in its purport, it is unnecessary for the court to exercise its right to request the prosecutor to change the indictment at the discretion of the court, so it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court below did not request the prosecutor to change the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1229, Oct. 26, 190; Supreme Court Decision 85Do1092, Jul. 23, 1985). It cannot be said that the court below did not exercise its right to request the prosecutor to change the indictment, or did not request the prosecutor to change the indictment.

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)