beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) rejected the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment and acquitted the prosecutor on the existing facts charged. The court below's rejection of changes in indictment is unlawful and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles
2. The public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court, add, withdraw, or change the facts charged or the applicable legal provisions stated in the indictment. In this case, the court shall permit it to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the facts charged (Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Therefore, since res judicata as to part of the facts charged in the relation of a single crime is limited to other parts that are not subject to adjudication in reality, since the res judicata as to a part of the facts charged in the relation of a single crime is limited to other parts that
On the other hand, since it cannot be deemed that the identity of the facts charged is prejudicial to, the court shall grant permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8118, Jan. 14, 2016). However, in the instant case, where there is no punishment law itself as to the indicted portion, and thus, it does not constitute an offense, the grounds for punishment thereafter have been newly established, and the Defendant has committed an act meeting the requirements for the composition of the Punishment of Punishment Act newly established in the same manner against the same other party through the same period before and after the establishment of the
Even if the newly established punishment law is enforced, it cannot be punished by applying the newly established law (Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act). Thus, there is a relationship of crime by assessing that the acts before and after the newly established punishment regulations are legally identical to those after the newly established punishment regulations.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Therefore, this case does not constitute a crime before the enforcement of penal provisions under the Interest Limitation Act.