A. In light of the legal principle, the part of the charge that “ female employees in bad name,” “unspecific male descendants,” and “nickly mediated two times of sexual intercourse,” etc., which did not specify the facts charged, making it impossible to exercise the Defendant’s right of defense. Therefore, rejection of prosecution ought to be dismissed. 2) The police who asserted illegally collected evidence enters the instant marina business without the warrant of search and seizure as if he/she was a customer and obtained employee’s written statement based on it, and thus, it is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence in violation of the warrant requirement.

3) The confession of the accused, which forms the basis for the calculation of the surcharge, is false, and the benefits derived from the instant arrangement of sexual traffic do not amount to 7.8 million won. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 7.8 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of non-prosecutions in the facts charged is required in order to limit the scope of trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. Therefore, it is desirable to clearly specify the facts as possible by specifying the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime. However, as long as it is necessary, it may interfere with the institution and maintenance of the public prosecution. Thus, the date and time of the crime is sufficient to state the extent that it does not conflict with the principle of territorial jurisdiction, and the place is sufficient to state the elements of the crime to the extent that it does not conflict with the principle of double prosecution or prescription, and in the method, it is sufficient to specify the facts that caused the public prosecution, in light of the nature of the crime against which the public prosecution was instituted, by stating the time, place, method, and purpose, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts that caused the public prosecution from other facts (see Supreme Court