On September 2012, the Defendant injecteds a psychotropic drug with a single-time injection machine, or administered it in a way of drinking water, such as coffee, at a non-commercial area below Busan Jung-gu.

2. Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime.” As such, the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged lies in identifying the object and scope of a trial by the court, and guaranteeing the defendant’s right of defense.

Therefore, it is sufficient that the facts constituting the crime charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime can be identified from other facts by taking account of these factors. Although the time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified.

On the other hand, since the crime of medication is often conducted without witness in a remote space where the crime is committed and it is extremely difficult to secure relevant evidence, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the relevant crime in determining whether to specify the facts charged. However, even though the defendant denies the administration of phiphones and the defendant did not secure clear evidence about it, it is very careful that the contents of the prosecution are specified in the case where the facts charged are stated by pointing out the period of administration based on the results of the assessment of maternity, even though the period of administration is estimated based on the results of the assessment of maternity, and even if there is no clear evidence about