The Supreme Court said, "It is impossible to permit the change of the indictment due to the statute of limitations."

At the time of the indictment, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution's acceptance of the change of the indictment filed by the prosecution for a crime whose statute of limitations expired was wrong.

On the 27th of last month, the Supreme Court reversed the court case, which sentenced A to six years in prison on charges of forgery of librarians and sent the case back to the Daejeon High Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court misunderstood the statute of limitations and did not conduct the necessary hearing, which affected the ruling.

Mr. A was indicted last year on charges of not being a pharmacist, borrowing a license from a pharmacist, running a pharmacy, dispensing medicines, and earning medical care benefits from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

The first trial court found A guilty of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and sentenced him to two and a half years in prison, but found him not guilty of forgery of private documents that he forged a pharmacy lease contract and handed it to the landlord.

Accordingly, the prosecution applied for a change in the indictment on charges of forgery and forgery of the contract during the appeal process, and the court accepted it and sentenced A to six years in prison.

Mr. A appealed that the statute of limitations for the use of false and forgery of librarians was five years, so in June last year, the statute of limitations was completed, and the Supreme Court accepted Mr. A's claim and sent the original court back.