A. The facts charged in this case cannot be deemed to have been specified in the misapprehension of the legal principle.

B. The Defendant does not have any megatocule the Megatocule (hereinafter “philophone”).

However, it is because man who has come to scopon from the defendant's side that the defendant's scopon reaction was administered in a state where he does not know about the scopon because man who does not have a scopon at the house and does not know about the scopon.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that Article 254(4) of the same Act specifies the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime is to limit the scope of the trial to the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, there is an inevitable case where a general indication on the date, place, etc. of the

However, the prosecutor must specify it as far as possible based on the evidence at the time of prosecution, and in a case where the failure to do so substantially impedes the exercise of the defendant's right to defense, it cannot be said that the indictment containing the specific facts of crime under Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

However, in the event that the defendant's statement of the detection of the Mesacopic ingredient is submitted as evidence due to the nature of the crime related to psychotropic drugs, and the defendant denies the medication, the time of medication is within the scope of the period during which the prosecutor can detect the mes by dividing the time of medication by the growth period, based on the results of the mescopic assessment by dividing the mescopic, or based on the defendant's mescop