Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Amending the indictment before convicting on a different charge
Supreme Court, Dec. 15, 2022, 2022Do10564 (judgment)
Case name: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(촬영물등이용협박)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영·반포등)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(촬영물등이용강요)·공갈미수
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Must a court go through the indictment amendment procedure before it may treat facts different from the original charge as the subject of trial and convict on them, and may it still convict on the amended charge where the case fell within an exception permitting conviction without that procedure?
Holding
In principle, yes. Because the charge defines the subject of trial and fixes the scope of the defence, the principles of criminal procedure, including the rule against conviction beyond the charge and the guarantee of the right of defence, require the amendment procedure first. Where the change does not substantially affect the basic elements of the charge, for example a mere matter of time, place or means or the correction of an obvious clerical error, and the defendant can exercise the right of defence in substance, the court may exceptionally convict on another charge within the scope of identity with the original charge without that procedure. Going through the procedure even in such a case is not unlawful absent special circumstances, because it defines the subject of trial clearly and strengthens the defence.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
다만 공소사실의 기본적 요소에 실질적인 영향을 미치지 않은 단순한 일시·장소·수단 등에 관한 사항 또는 명백한 오기의 정정에 해당하는 등 피고인이 방어권을 실질적으로 행사함에 지장이 없는 경우에는 예외적으로 공소장변경절차를 거치지 않고서도 직권으로 당초 공소사실과 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내의 다른 공소사실에 대하여 유죄를 인정할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where the defendant's exercise of the right of defense is not impeded in substance, such as where the matter concerns simple particulars as to time, place, or means that have no substantial effect on the basic elements of the statement of alleged facts, or where the correction constitutes a correction of an obvious clerical error, the court may exceptionally find the defendant guilty, ex officio and without following the procedure for amending the bill of indictment, of a different statement of alleged facts within the scope in which identity with the original statement of alleged facts is recognized.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
다만 공소사실의 기본적 요소에 실질적인 영향을 미치지 않은 단순한 일시·장소·수단 등에 관한 사항 또는 명백한 오기의 정정에 해당하는 등 피고인이 방어권을 실질적으로 행사함에 지장이 없는 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
However, where the defendant's exercise of the right of defense is not impeded in substance, such as where the matter concerns simple particulars as to time, place, or means that have no substantial effect on the basic elements of the statement of alleged facts, or where the correction constitutes a correction of an obvious clerical error,
Factors
- 공소사실의 기본적 요소에 실질적인 영향을 미치지 않은
- 단순한 일시·장소·수단 등에 관한 사항
- 명백한 오기의 정정에 해당하는
- 피고인이 방어권을 실질적으로 행사함에 지장이 없는
- 당초 공소사실과 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내의
Unofficial English translation
• having no substantial effect on the basic elements of the statement of alleged facts
• matters concerning simple particulars as to time, place, or means
• constituting a correction of an obvious clerical error
• where the defendant's exercise of the right of defense is not impeded in substance
• within the scope in which identity with the original statement of alleged facts is recognized
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
공소사실은 법원의 심판대상을 한정하고 피고인의 방어범위를 특정함으로써 피고인의 방어권을 보장하는 의미를 가지므로
Unofficial English translation
since the statement of alleged facts serves to limit the subject matter of the court's adjudication and to specify the scope of the defendant's defense, it has significance in guaranteeing the defendant's right of defense,
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make it unlawful to convict on an amended charge even though the amendment procedure was completed?
A later decision that identifies the special circumstances left open here, or that narrows or widens the exception for changes not affecting the basic elements, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as setting out a new standard, while the independent reading leaves open whether it is new, since the holding restates existing principles on the exception. The difference concerns how the precedent relation is characterized.
공소사실은 법원의 심판대상을 한정하고 피고인의 방어범위를 특정함으로써 피고인의 방어권을 보장하는 의미를 가지므로Raw 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 17 August 2022 (2022No540), granted an application to amend the indictment by adding part of the means of offence set out in item (a) of paragraph 3 of the charge. It held that the subject of trial had changed, reversed the first-instance judgment of its own motion and, after a proper examination of the evidence, found the defendant guilty on the amended charge.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. The amendment merely added and corrected part of the means of offence, so it did not substantially affect the basic elements of the charge and the defendant could still exercise the right of defence in substance, a case in which conviction without the amendment procedure would itself have been unobjectionable. Convicting on the amended charge after going through that procedure only defined the subject of trial more clearly and strengthened the defence, so this was not a misreading of the law on indictment amendment affecting the judgment. It also found no error in the free evaluation of evidence or in the law on the offences of threat to use a filmed material and on the intent required for coercion, extortion and intimidation, and dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A change that does substantially affect the basic elements of the charge, since the exception is confined to changes leaving the defence unimpaired in substance.
- A case in which the defendant could not exercise the right of defence in substance, so that convicting on other facts without the amendment procedure would infringe the defence or breach the rule against conviction beyond the charge.
- A case in which special circumstances make going through the amendment procedure and convicting on the amended charge unlawful.
Record verification notes
Set the amended allegation against the original charge item by item and ask what actually changed, and whether the change left the defendant able to defend in substance. Check that identity with the original charge is preserved, since the Court allowed conviction only within its scope. Note also that the permission to amend was granted below and that the Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence separately.
From the official text
Points at issue
법원이 당초 공소사실과 다른 공소사실을 심판대상으로 삼아 유죄를 인정하기 위해서는 공소장변경절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 공소장변경절차를 거치지 않고서도 직권으로 당초 공소사실과 다른 공소사실에 대하여 유죄를 인정할 수 있는 예외적인 경우임에도 공소장변경절차를 거친 다음 변경된 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하는 것이 위법한지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in order for a court to find the defendant guilty upon a different statement of alleged facts from the original one as the subject of adjudication, the procedure for amending the bill of indictment must be followed (in principle, affirmative) / Whether it is unlawful, even in an exceptional case where the court may ex officio find the defendant guilty upon a different statement of alleged facts from the original one without following the procedure for amending the bill of indictment, to find the defendant guilty of the amended statement of alleged facts after following the procedure for amending the bill of indictment (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
공소사실은 법원의 심판대상을 한정하고 피고인의 방어범위를 특정함으로써 피고인의 방어권을 보장하는 의미를 가지므로, 법원이 당초 공소사실과 다른 공소사실을 심판대상으로 삼아 유죄를 인정하기 위해서는 불고불리 원칙 및 피고인의 방어권 보장 등 형사소송의 기본원칙에 따라 공소장변경절차를 거치는 것이 원칙이다. 다만 공소사실의 기본적 요소에 실질적인 영향을 미치지 않은 단순한 일시·장소·수단 등에 관한 사항 또는 명백한 오기의 정정에 해당하는 등 피고인이 방어권을 실질적으로 행사함에 지장이 없는 경우에는 예외적으로 공소장변경절차를 거치지 않고서도 직권으로 당초 공소사실과 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내의 다른 공소사실에 대하여 유죄를 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 공소장변경절차를 거쳐야 하는 경우임에도 이를 거치지 않은 채 직권으로 당초 공소사실과 다른 공소사실에 대하여 유죄를 인정하는 것은 피고인의 방어권을 침해하거나 불고불리 원칙에 위반되어 허용될 수 없지만, 공소장변경절차를 거치지 않고서도 직권으로 당초 공소사실과 다른 공소사실에 대하여 유죄를 인정할 수 있는 예외적인 경우임에도 공소장변경절차를 거친 다음 변경된 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하는 것은 심판대상을 명확히 특정함으로써 피고인의 방어권 보장을 강화하는 것이므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위법하다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제298조
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