Residence Chungcheongnam-Nam

Reference domicile Chungcheongnam-Nam

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The description of facts charged shall specify the time, date, place, and method of a crime.” The purport of the provision is to ensure the efficiency and speed of the trial by limiting the object of the trial and to facilitate the exercise of defense rights by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, must include specific facts that meet the requirements for composition of a crime in order to distinguish facts from other facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3194, Sept. 27, 2002, etc.).

The court below, based on the appraisal result that the date and time of the crime stated in each of the facts charged in this case was tested for the Defendant's hair, and the test was conducted for the Defendant's hair, presumed the administered period to be the calendar in a case where the philophone was detected from the hair's hair. The method of medication is limited to the general common example of the narcotics users, and it cannot be viewed as a statement of specific facts that meet the requirements of Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the prosecution of this case cannot be deemed as specified in each of the facts charged.

For this reason, the conclusion of dismissal of the first instance court was maintained as it is.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the specification of facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Min Il-young