The facts charged in the instant case are not included in the contents of how the Defendant had contacted with the U.S., and thus the indictment is unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment (one million won of fine) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the date, place, and method of a crime shall be specified in the facts charged in order to specify the facts charged. The purpose of the provision is to determine whether double indictment or prescription is promoted, and to facilitate the exercise of defense by limiting the scope of defense of the defendant. Thus, the facts charged should be stated to the extent that it is possible to distinguish specific facts that meet the requirements for the constituent elements of the crime from other facts by taking into account the three specific elements

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are as follows: ① The facts charged in the instant case was demanded on September 17, 2013 by the Defendant to receive help from the F, etc., a customer, at the E K practice room around 22:00, and offered a loan by allowing two females in the name of the contact provider to attend a singing, and allowing them to attend a singing.

2. Around 01:00 on September 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a demand from the said singing practice room from G, etc., a customer; (b) provided a loan by allowing two females in the name of the recipient loan to sit in and singing together; and (c) arranged the loan by allowing two females in the name of the recipient loan to sit in.

"In addition, since the time, place, customer who arranged the helper, etc. are specified, the fact which caused the prosecution is different.