From November 21, 2012 to February 21, 2013, the Defendant administered the dose of psychotropic drugs in a place where Ansan-si is located.

2. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating that “The facts charged shall be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime,” is to ensure the efficiency and speed of a trial by limiting the object of a trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, shall state specific facts that constitute the elements of a crime, so as to distinguish facts from other facts by taking account of the aforementioned three specific elements.

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 Supreme Court Decision 2006Do391 Decided April 28, 2006). The Defendant denied the aforementioned charges. The date and time of the crime in this case was estimated as a calendar based on the result of the Defendant’s test on the mother engine, which led to the detection of phiphones from the maternity engine to the extent of its length. However, the period and time of the crime in this case were 3 months, comprehensive and ambiguous; the place of medication is deemed to be based on the location of the base station where the Defendant’s cell phone calls were transmitted; however, the mobile phone calls were nonexistent from November 21, 2012 to February 21, 2013, and there is no evidence to specify the place of crime.