(a) Procedures for withdrawing objects of partial prosecution from among several facts charged in a concurrent relationship;

(b) The court's assistance where the prosecutor has applied for changes in indictment containing the purpose of revocation of prosecution.

A. Withdrawal of the facts charged by the method of Amendments to Bill of Indictment is possible only to some facts charged within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized. Thus, in the case where several facts charged in the indictment are not identical and substantial, and where there are concurrent relationships with each other, some of them must be withdrawn from the indictment, not by the method of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment, but by the procedure

B. In a case where there is a request for a prosecutor’s modification of indictment, which completely excludes the defendant from the subject of prosecution, among several facts charged in relation to substantive concurrent relations, such request shall be deemed as cancellation of prosecution, even if it does not meet the form of application for cancellation of prosecution, and thus dismissed.

(b)Article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 328 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Supreme Court Decision 86Do1487 Decided September 23, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Cho Byung-hee et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 87No999 delivered on December 4, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The withdrawal of the indictment by the method of the modification of indictment can be limited to only some of the facts charged within the extent that the identity of the indictment is recognized. Thus, in cases where several facts charged in the indictment are not identical and there are substantive concurrent relationships with each other, it is not the method of the modification of indictment but the procedure for the partial cancellation of the indictment in order to withdraw part of the facts charged. In cases where there is a request by the prosecutor that completely excludes the defendant from the indictment subject to the indictment, if it is obvious that this is the purpose of the revocation of the indictment, even though this does not correspond to the application for the cancellation of the indictment, it shall be deemed as the cancellation of the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1487 delivered on September 23, 1986).

According to the records, since 24 persons, including the defendant, co-defendants of the court below, were divided into several cases due to violence, etc., and indicted in sequence at the court of first instance, and sentenced to one judgment, among them, in light of the facts charged by the defendant and the records of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court below, the defendant first and fourth violent crimes as originally admitted by the court below were charged as concurrent crimes, and the prosecutor submitted an application for change of indictment at the court of first instance (refer to 190 court records) at the court of first instance, and the above amendment of indictment was permitted on the date of the court of first instance. However, it is evident that the application for change of indictment is to completely exclude the defendant from the list of the persons subject to prosecution, and it is probable that the above application for change of indictment was related to the defendant and the whole withdrawal of indictment falling under the first and fourth concurrent crimes, and it is reasonable to view the defendant's withdrawal of indictment as a whole and the whole withdrawal of indictment of the court of first instance as facts charged.

Although it is clear that the court below found the defendant guilty of all the two criminal facts as above, it is because the prosecutor's above application for changes in the indictment or that the application for changes in the indictment does not recognize the validity of the above application, the court below should have dismissed the prosecution on the part of the non-indicted by considering the non-indicted's partial cancellation if the application for changes in the indictment clearly stated in the record is examined to the effect that it is intended to eliminate all the charges falling under the No. 1 of the judgment against the defendant and exclude them from the indictment. Ultimately, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application for changes in the indictment or the cancellation of the indictment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amendment in the indictment or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amendment in the indictment or the cancellation of the indictment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)