A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (in 10 months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine and the facts charged of the instant case are specified.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The Defendant is not aware of the fact that he administered a cropopon (hereinafter “copon”).

However, H from the defendant's scopon's scopon's scopon's scopon's scopon's scopon in the defendant's drink at the gambling place, or I authorized the defendant to scopon's scopon's scopon's sc

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to limit the subject matter of a trial to the court and facilitate the Defendant’s exercise of his/her defense by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime.” Thus, even where a general indication on the date, place, etc. of the crime is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, the prosecutor must specify it as far as possible based on the evidence at the time of the prosecution. In a case where the failure to do so causes de facto impediment to the Defendant’s defense, it cannot be said that the indictment contains specific criminal facts as stipulated in Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in light of the characteristics of the crime related to native mental medicine, it is produced by evidence that the Defendant’s me was detected from the Defendant’s mother organ, and where the Defendant denies the medication, the prosecutor subdivides the appearance by dividing it by the period of growth and the result of the Defendant’s oral appraisal or any other evidence.