Judgment

Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "The facts charged shall be stated clearly by the time, date, place, and method of a crime," and the purport of the law requiring the specification of facts charged is to confirm the object and scope of a trial by the court, and to guarantee the defendant's right of defense.

Therefore, it is sufficient that the facts constituting the crime charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime can be identified from other facts by taking account of these factors. Although the time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4854 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.). On the other hand, since a crime of medication involving narcotics is often conducted without witness in a remote space where the crime is committed and it is extremely difficult to secure relevant evidence, the characteristics of the relevant crime need to be fully considered in determining whether to specify the facts charged. However, even though the defendant denied the fact of philopon medication and the defendant did not secure clear evidence about it, it should be carefully determined whether the contents of prosecution are specified in the case where the facts charged are stated by pointing out the period of punishment based on the results of the Madon test, although the defendant presumed the period of administration based on the results of the Madon test, and by pointing out the period of the

First, narcotics.