1. The facts charged regarding an unspecified assertion in the facts charged ought to be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient to state the facts constituting the elements of the crime to the extent that it can be distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements.

The indictment does not go against the purpose of the law that stipulates the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime, even if the indictment does not specify the facts charged, and it is inevitable to generally indicate 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

We can see (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002; 2014Do2918, Jul. 24, 2014). The date and time of the instant charge is relatively generally indicated as “the date between June and August 2014 and the date between August 1, 2014”.

However, according to the records, it is difficult for the victim as a person with a disability of class 2 of the intellectual disability to memory or express the accurate date of damage.

In light of the characteristics of sexual crimes, which are not easy to secure objective evidence except the statements made by the victim, the prosecutor seems to have been bound to indicate the date and time of the crime in general due to the limit of the victim's ability to state.

In addition, the facts charged of this case can be distinguished from other facts in light of the place of crime and the attitude of crime, etc., thus infringing the defendant's right of defense.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Examining these circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower judgment alleged the grounds of appeal.