Generally, the date and time of a crime is a requirement to specify the facts charged and is not a fundamental element of the crime.

Unless the interval between crimes is long and the date and time of crime is in serious relationship with the establishment of a crime or when various criminal facts that differ temporarily in the nature of the case are compatible with each other and are likely to disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the identity of basic facts can be maintained even if the date and time are somewhat different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2156, Dec. 28, 1982; 91Do723, Jun. 11, 1991). In addition, in a case where it is deemed that there is no concern that the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense may be seriously disadvantaged in light of the progress of trial within the extent consistent with the facts charged, the court below's finding ex officio the facts charged and other criminal facts different from those stated in the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6433, Mar. 24, 2006).

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the trial of evidence and amendments to indictment

The ground of appeal by the court below that the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence even though the defendant's embezzlement was not false, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.