Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged regarding the assertion that the facts charged are not specified must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient if the facts constituting the elements are stated to the extent that it is recognizable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements. Even if the date, place, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the above degree, and if it is inevitable to indicate the facts in light of the nature of the crimes charged, and if it does not interfere with the defendant’s right to defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified.

It cannot be seen (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do48, Jun. 2, 2006). The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. The lower court stated that “The record is examined, the prosecutor specified the time for medication under the facts charged of the instant case based on the Defendant’s results of the Defendant’s maternal and urine appraisal, as long as it is possible to do so, and analyzed the Defendant’s telephone contents during the above period, and recorded the place for medication under the facts charged of the instant

"Absent to see" was determined.

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the records is justifiable in the judgment of the court below.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion that the phonephone was not administered, i.e., the result of the Defendant’s assessment of the defense and the hair.