A. In spite of the fact that the facts charged in the instant case were not specified, the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

B. Inasmuch as the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as there was no fact that he administered a phiphone between October 6, 2015 and October 12, 2015.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one hundred thousand won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 254(4) of the misunderstanding of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires the establishment of a specific element of the facts charged, is to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of the defendant's defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the specific element of the crime can be comprehensively identified and the facts constituting the crime can be identified to the extent that it does not go against double prosecution or prescription. Thus, even if the date of the crime is not specified in the indictment, the statement is not contrary to the above extent, and in addition, in light of the nature of the crime, the general indication about the time is inevitable, and if it is deemed that there is no hindrance to the defendant's exercise of the right of defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the facts charged in this case were specified to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right to defense, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the facts charged in this case were specified to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right to defense. Thus, the court below's assertion is the same.