Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Service of the copy of the application to amend the indictment
Supreme Court, June 30, 2021, 2019Do7217 (judgment)
Case name: 강제추행(인정된 죄명: 공연음란)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the prosecution has applied in writing for permission to amend the indictment, does the court's granting of the amendment and conviction on the charge stated in that application, without serving or handing the copy of the application to the defendant or counsel, amount to a statutory violation that affected the judgment?
Holding
Yes, in principle. A written application is the ordinary route for amending an indictment, a rule made to fix the subject of adjudication clearly, keep the procedure definite and enable the defendant to exercise the right of defence, while Rules 142(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules require the court to serve the copies immediately. The failure is not a violation affecting the judgment where special circumstances show that the amendment posed no hindrance to the defence, or that the defendant and counsel were given a full opportunity at the hearing to argue the changed charge, so that their rights were not essentially infringed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
검사의 서면에 의한 공소장변경허가신청이 있는데도 법원이 피고인 또는 변호인에게 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 송달·교부하지 않은 채 공소장변경을 허가하고 공소장변경허가신청서에 기재된 공소사실에 관하여 유죄판결을 하였다면, 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 송달·교부하지 않은 법원의 잘못은 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the prosecutor has submitted a written application for amendment of the indictment and the court, without serving or delivering a copy of the application for amendment of the indictment to the defendant or counsel, grants the amendment of the indictment and renders a judgment of guilty on the charged facts stated in the application for amendment of the indictment, the court's error in failing to serve or deliver a copy of the application for amendment of the indictment constitutes a violation of statutes and regulations affecting the judgment.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 창원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
다만 공소장변경 내용이 피고인의 방어권과 변호인의 변호권 행사에 지장이 없는 것이거나 피고인과 변호인이 공판기일에서 변경된 공소사실에 대하여 충분히 변론할 기회를 부여받는 등 피고인의 방어권이나 변호인의 변호권이 본질적으로 침해되지 않았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 있다면 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반이라고 할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
However, if there are special circumstances such that the content of the amendment of the indictment does not impede the exercise of the defendant's right of defense and defense counsel's right to defend, or the defendant and defense counsel were given a sufficient opportunity to argue as to the amended charged facts at the trial date, so that the defendant's right of defense or defense counsel's right to defend cannot be regarded as having been essentially infringed, it cannot be said to be a violation of statutes and regulations affecting the judgment.
Factors
- 형사소송규칙 제142조 제2항, 제3항에 따르면, 검사가 서면으로 공소장변경신청을 하는 경우 피고인의 수에 상응한 부본을 첨부하여야 하고, 법원은 그 부본을 피고인 또는 변호인에게 즉시 송달하여야 한다.
- 공소장변경 내용이 피고인의 방어권과 변호인의 변호권 행사에 지장이 없는 것이거나
- 공연음란죄는 강제추행죄와 비교하여 행위 양태, 보호법익, 죄질과 법정형 등에서 차이가 있어
- 기존 공소사실과 예비적 공소사실은 심판대상과 피고인의 방어대상이 서로 달라 피고인의 방어권이나 변호인의 변호권을 본질적으로 침해한 것으로 볼 수 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Under Article 142, paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, when the prosecutor applies for amendment of the indictment in writing, copies in a number corresponding to the number of defendants must be attached thereto, and the court must immediately serve those copies on the defendant or counsel.
• where the content of the amendment of the indictment does not impede the exercise of the defendant's right of defense and defense counsel's right to defend,
• the crime of public indecency differs from the crime of forcible indecency in the manner of conduct, the protected legal interest, the nature of the offense, and the statutory penalty, and
• the existing charged facts and the alternative charged facts differ from each other in the subject matter of adjudication and in the matters the defendant must defend against, so that the defendant's right of defense or defense counsel's right to defend may be regarded as having been essentially infringed, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 6. 8. 선고 2017도5122 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5122 decided June 8, 2017
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2009. 6. 11. 선고 2009도1830 판결, 대법원 2017. 6. 8. 선고 2017도5122 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the copy was served on the defendant and counsel before the debate was closed, how little time for argument still leaves their defence rights essentially infringed?
The judgment of the Changwon District Court on remand, once the amended charge is tried again after the copy has been served, will show how the exception is applied in practice. Any later Supreme Court decision that narrows or widens the special circumstances, or an amendment to Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Changwon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 16 May 2019 (2018No2934), at the second hearing on 18 April 2019 permitted the prosecution to add public indecency as an alternative charge, without serving or handing the copy of the application to the defendant or counsel, and closed the debate that same day. It gave the defendant and counsel a chance to state their final view, and they denied the newly added charge. On 16 May 2019 the court reversed the first-instance acquittal on forcible molestation, found the alternative charge proved, and fined the defendant KRW 4 million. The copy was served on counsel only on 19 April 2019 and on the defendant on 3 May 2019, after the debate had closed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that public indecency differs from forcible molestation in conduct, protected legal interest, gravity of the offence and statutory penalty, because whether the defendant masturbated and whether that act was public goes to the elements of public indecency but has no direct bearing on forcible molestation, so the subject of adjudication and the target of the defence were not the same. Proceeding without serving the copy and closing the debate the same day may be seen as essentially infringing the right of defence and the right of defence through counsel, a statutory violation affecting the judgment. Because the alternative charge had to be reversed, the whole judgment including the principal charge was reversed and the case sent back to the Changwon District Court, on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An amendment whose content poses no hindrance to the exercise of the defendant's right of defence or counsel's right of defence.
- A case in which the defendant and counsel were given a full opportunity at the hearing to argue the changed charge, so that no special circumstances show an essential infringement.
- An oral application to amend at a hearing before the defendant, made for the defendant's benefit or with the defendant's consent, where the written-application route under Article 142(1), (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules does not apply.
Record verification notes
Fix the sequence on the file first: when the copy of the application was served or handed over, when the amendment was permitted, and when the debate was closed. Then set the original charge and the amended charge against each other on conduct, protected legal interest, gravity of the offence and statutory penalty, since the Court relied on a change in the subject of adjudication. Finally gather anything showing that the defendant and counsel in fact argued the amended charge in full at the hearing, because that is the ground on which the exception turns.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형사소송규칙 제142조 제1항, 제5항의 규정 취지 / 검사의 서면에 의한 공소장변경허가신청이 있는데도 법원이 피고인 또는 변호인에게 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 송달·교부하지 않은 채 공소장변경을 허가하고 공소장변경허가신청서에 기재된 공소사실에 관하여 유죄판결을 한 경우, 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 송달·교부하지 않은 법원의 잘못이 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 피고인이 강제추행죄로 기소되어 제1심에서 무죄가 선고되자 검사가 항소심에서 공연음란죄를 예비적으로 추가하는 공소장변경허가신청서를 제출하였는데 원심이 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 피고인 또는 변호인에게 송달하거나 교부하지 않은 채 공판절차를 진행하여 제1심판결을 파기하고 예비적 공소사실을 유죄로 판단한 사안에서, 원심판결에는 공소장변경절차에 관한 법령을 위반하여 판결에 영향을 미친 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport of Article 142, paragraph (1) and paragraph (5) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure / Where the prosecutor has submitted a written application for amendment of the indictment and the court, without serving or delivering a copy of the application for amendment of the indictment to the defendant or counsel, grants the amendment of the indictment and renders a judgment of guilty on the charged facts stated in the application for amendment of the indictment, whether the court's error in failing to serve or deliver a copy of the application for amendment of the indictment constitutes a violation of statutes and regulations affecting the judgment (affirmative in principle) [2] A case in which the defendant was prosecuted for the crime of forcible indecency and was found not guilty at the court of first instance, the prosecutor submitted an application for amendment of the indictment additionally charging the crime of public indecency in the alternative at the appellate instance, and the court below proceeded with the trial procedure without serving or delivering a copy of the application for amendment of the indictment to the defendant or counsel, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and found the alternative charged facts guilty, in which it was held that the judgment of the court below contained an error in violation of statutes and regulations governing the procedure for amendment of the indictment that affected the judgment
Summary of the holding
[1] 법원은 공소사실 또는 적용법조의 추가, 철회 또는 변경이 있을 때에는 그 사유를 신속히 피고인 또는 변호인에게 고지하여야 한다(형사소송법 제298조 제3항). 형사소송규칙 제142조 제1항은 ‘검사가 형사소송법 제298조 제1항에 따라 공소장에 기재한 공소사실 또는 적용법조의 추가, 철회 또는 변경을 하고자 하는 때에는 그 취지를 기재한 공소장변경허가신청서를 법원에 제출하여야 한다.’고 정하고, 제5항은 ‘법원은 제1항의 규정에도 불구하고 피고인이 재정하는 공판정에서는 피고인에게 이익이 되거나 피고인이 동의하는 경우 구술에 의한 공소장변경을 허가할 수 있다.’고 정하고 있다. 이와 같이 검사가 공소장변경신청을 하고자 할 때에는 서면으로 하는 것이 원칙이고, 예외적으로 피고인이 재정하는 공판정에서 피고인에게 이익이 되거나 피고인이 동의하는 경우에는 구술에 의한 공소장변경신청을 할 수 있다. 이는 심판의 대상을 명확히 한정하고 절차를 분명히 하여 피고인의 방어권 행사를 가능하게 하기 위한 것이다. 형사소송규칙 제142조 제2항, 제3항에 따르면, 검사가 서면으로 공소장변경신청을 하는 경우 피고인의 수에 상응한 부본을 첨부하여야 하고, 법원은 그 부본을 피고인 또는 변호인에게 즉시 송달하여야 한다. 위와 같은 공소장변경 절차에 관한 법규의 내용과 취지에 비추어 보면, 검사의 서면에 의한 공소장변경허가신청이 있는데도 법원이 피고인 또는 변호인에게 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 송달·교부하지 않은 채 공소장변경을 허가하고 공소장변경허가신청서에 기재된 공소사실에 관하여 유죄판결을 하였다면, 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 송달·교부하지 않은 법원의 잘못은 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반에 해당한다. 다만 공소장변경 내용이 피고인의 방어권과 변호인의 변호권 행사에 지장이 없는 것이거나 피고인과 변호인이 공판기일에서 변경된 공소사실에 대하여 충분히 변론할 기회를 부여받는 등 피고인의 방어권이나 변호인의 변호권이 본질적으로 침해되지 않았다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 있다면 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반이라고 할 수 없다. [2] 피고인이 강제추행죄로 기소되어 제1심에서 무죄가 선고되자 검사가 항소심에서 공연음란죄를 예비적으로 추가하는 공소장변경허가신청서를 제출하였는데 원심이 공소장변경허가신청서 부본을 피고인 또는 변호인에게 송달하거나 교부하지 않은 채 공판절차를 진행하여 기존 공소사실에 대하여 무죄로 판단한 제1심판결을 파기하고 예비적 공소사실을 유죄로 판단한 사안에서, 공연음란죄는 강제추행죄와 비교하여 행위 양태, 보호법익, 죄질과 법정형 등에서 차이가 있어, 기존 공소사실과 예비적 공소사실은 심판대상과 피고인의 방어대상이 서로 달라 피고인의 방어권이나 변호인의 변호권을 본질적으로 침해한 것으로 볼 수 있으므로, 원심판결에는 공소장변경절차에 관한 법령을 위반하여 판결에 영향을 미친 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 창원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제298조 제3항, 형사소송규칙 제142조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항, 제5항 [2] 형사소송법 제298조 제3항, 형사소송규칙 제142조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger