[2] The case holding that in the case of the facts charged that "it is not a handler of narcotics, but purchase and administer approximately 0.7 g of Mesacin from January 2008 to February 15:00 on the date of February 200 of the same year on a total of 21 occasions from February 2009 to February 00 on the date of February 200 of the same year", the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been specified solely on the above general statement as to the period of purchase and administration of Mesacin.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, which found guilty on the premise that the facts charged are specified, on the following grounds: "In the case of facts charged, "it is highly likely that the exercise of the defendant's right of defense would be impeded, and since it is difficult to view that multiple possibilities of crimes were limited within the period specified in the above purchase and medication period, in light of the characteristics of criminal facts repeated during the short period of time, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the facts charged constitute a specific description of specific facts, since it cannot be deemed that the facts charged are specified in the above facts charged."

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The facts charged shall be stated clearly stating the time, date, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of defense by specifying the scope of defense, thereby clarifying the scope of defense. As a prosecutor, he/she shall enter specific facts that constitute the elements of a crime in order to distinguish facts from other facts by comprehensively taking into account the three specific elements, and the same applies to the description on the facts charged of a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., the purpose of which is to purchase narcotics

이 사건 공소사실은 “피고인은 마약류 취급자가 아님에도, 2008년 1월경부터 같은 해 2월 일자불상 15:00경까지 사이에 인천 남구 용현동 물텀벙사거리에 있는 상호불상의 오락실 앞 노상에서 공소외인으로부터 1회용 주사기에 담긴 메스암페타민 약 0.7g을 교부받아 이를 매수한 외에, 그때부터 2009년 2월 내지 3월 일자불상 07:00경까지 총 21회에 걸쳐 필로폰을 매수·투약하였다.”는 것인바, 메스암페타민의 매수 및 투약시기에 관한 위와 같은 개괄적인 기재만으로는 피고인의 방어권 행사에 지장을 초래할 위험성이 크고, 단기간 내에 반복되는 공소 범죄사실의 특성에 비추어 볼 때 위 매수 및 투약시기로 기재된 기간 내에 복수의 범행 가능성이 농후하여 심판대상이 한정되었다고 보기 어렵다고 할 것이니, 이러한 공소사실의 기재는 특정한 구체적 사실의 기재에 해당한다고 볼 수 없어 형사소송법 제254조 제4항 에 정해진 요건을 갖추지 못하였으므로, 이 사건 공소는 공소제기의 절차가 법률의 규정에 위반하여 무효라고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, under the premise that the facts charged in this case are specified, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)