A. Defendant 1) With respect to the administration of philophones among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, since this part of the facts charged did not properly specify the time, place, quantity, method, etc. of the crime, the dismissal of prosecution pursuant to Article 327(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act should be dismissed. 2) As to the fact of administration of philophones among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have any fact of administration of philophones as

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 100,00) is too unreasonable and unfair.B. Prosecutor 1) Regarding the issuance of penphones among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he issued penphones to E, such as this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2 The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of mistake of facts, first of all, we examine whether the facts charged are specified in the facts charged (A). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime are recognizable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in view of the nature of the facts charged, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed not specified.