A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not intentionally administer philophones as indicated in the facts charged, and the philophone ingredients were not detected in the Malophones examination.

Although the defendant's philopon ingredients were put into the body of the defendant, it is because the defendant's wife brought in China and brought in China some of the reduction drugs, or the defendant's philopon ingredients were temporarily brought into the body of the defendant.

In addition, the facts charged of this case did not entirely specify the date, time, place, method, etc. of philophone medication (Provided, That it is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant did not assert in the statement of reasons for appeal, and the defense counsel asserted in the statement of argument that was submitted after the deadline for appeal was not timely filed). Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misconception of facts, which affected

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and additional collection of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An entry in the facts charged as to whether or not the facts charged are specified must be made by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the Act demanding the specification of the facts charged is to guarantee the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense. As such, insofar as the facts charged are stated in the facts charged to the extent that it is recognizable from other facts, it does not go against the purport of the Act allowing the specification of the facts charged, even if the time, place, method, etc.

B. It is not specified that the content of the public prosecution was not specified if it is inevitable to indicate generality in light of the nature of the crime, and it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his right to defense.

No one can do so (Supreme Court Decision 200 August 26, 2010).