In light of the special characteristics of drug cases, the instant facts charged specified the date and time of the crime based on the maternity appraisal result, and specified the place of crime based on the location of the telephone station where the Defendant used the mobile phone for the same period, so that the facts charged was specified to the extent that it does not cause any impediment to the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense

The judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the ground that it was unspecified in the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged.

Judgment

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The facts constituting the crime charged shall be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to ensure the efficiency and speed of a trial by limiting the object of a trial and to facilitate the exercise of defense by specifying the scope of defense and to facilitate the exercise of defense by the defendant. As such, the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, shall state specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime, so that the facts can be

This is also applicable to a statement on the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the purpose of which is to administer narcotics without a narcotics handler.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3801, Jun. 9, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, we examine whether the instant facts charged were specified.

The facts charged of the instant case reveal that “The Defendant administered the psychotropic drugs, which was psychotropic drugs, in the form of coffee or scam, on the day from August 2012 to September 2012, 2012 between the first patrolman and the first patrolman, in the French-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “one-name cloppphone”), the psychotropic drugs in which they were psychotropic drugs administered,” and that “The Defendant administered them in the form of coffee or scam.”

However, the defendant is consistent from investigative agency to this court.