On September 2017, the Defendant administered a scopon one time by an influorous method at a scopon in the scopic area D below Seocho-si, Seocho-si.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the purport of the Act demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient to include the facts constituting the elements of the crime in a manner that can be identified from other facts, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specifically indicated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the Act allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s right to defense, the contents of the

Nor can it be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2694, Jun. 14, 2007, etc.). According to the records, the prosecutor specified the Defendant’s date and time of gathering the hair from the reaction against the Defendant, the growth speed of the hair, the Defendant’s statement about his residence or visit for the above period, the Defendant’s mobile phone call details, etc., by specifying the Defendant’s date and time of committing the crime as “Sckman at early September 2017,” and specifically specifying the place as “Sclsan City D or lower” as possible. In light of the circumstances specified in the facts charged in the instant case, the content of the examination of evidence, and the characteristics of the narcotics-related crime, etc., the quantity and the method of administration of the phone are not specified.

The facts charged in this case do not infringe the defendant's right of defense.