Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the public prosecution on the contrary grounds is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of public prosecution.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing public prosecution on the ground that the entry of the facts charged in the instant case in order to make it extremely difficult to exercise the Defendant’s right to defense, and it cannot be deemed that the requirements under Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act are met. Thus, the instant public prosecution constitutes a case where the procedure for public prosecution

B. 1) The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The entry of facts charged shall be made to specify the time, date, place, and method of a crime and specify the facts.” At the same time, the purpose of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial, and to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. Therefore, the prosecutor’s time and time, whether it conflicts with the territorial jurisdiction in relation to the place, whether it constitutes territorial jurisdiction in relation to the place, and whether it falls under the requirements for the composition of a crime, and to the extent that it is possible to distinguish the above three specific elements from other facts, and shall include specific facts that meet the requirements for the composition of a crime so that it can be recognizable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1274, Mar. 29, 2012; 2005Do7465, Dec. 9, 2005).

The reasons are as follows. A prosecutor is as follows: (a) the first prosecutor’s first prosecutor extends from March 2013 to September 2015 an average of 1-2 times each month between F and F, and total of 30-40 times each month.