2. The appeal against Defendant 1 and 3 is dismissed.

The phrase "date" of a crime referred to in Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the specific method of facts charged, requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, and the phrase "place" requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with territorial jurisdiction, and the phrase " method" requires a statement to the extent that it indicates the elements of a crime, and the purport of the law requiring three specific elements of the facts charged is to limit the scope of the defendant's defense and facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by limiting the scope of the defendant's defense, so the facts charged are to be stated to the extent that it can identify the specific facts that meet the above three specific elements of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do112, Jun. 3, 198).

Since the above legal principles are the same, even if the time, place, method, etc. of a crime are clearly stated in the indictment, if it does not go against the extent that it is necessary to enter the "place" as mentioned above, and if it is deemed that the general indication of the three elements is unavoidable in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the contents of the indictment shall not be deemed null and void as a violation of the indictment.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below in this case, the court below held that Defendant 1 injected psychotropic drugs over several times from January 1, 198 to December 1, 198 of the same year by inserting psychotropic drugs for one-time injection with one-time injection tool between the first and the first half of the same year, and that Defendant 2’s injection with one-time injection tool from July 198 to the first half of the same year from February 1989, the part of the court below determined that Defendant 3’s medication of psychotropic drugs for four times with one-time injection tool from the first half of the first half of the year to the second half of the same year, and that the remaining part of the facts charged cannot be viewed as a legitimate concurrent crime, in light of Article 42(1)1 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act and Article 42(1)4 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be viewed as a legitimate concurrent crime, and thus, the remaining part of the facts charged cannot be viewed as a concurrent crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. However, since this part was prosecuted as concurrent crimes with the judgment of conviction of the court below, all of the judgment below against the same defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below, and all of the remaining defendants' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)