마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Punishment of the crime
Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, from April 8, 2016 to April 15, 2016, the Defendant administered philophones by dilutioning the meconcule (one philophone (one philophone; hereinafter “philophone”) of the meconcule, which is a local mental medicine, into water between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s meconcule (one philophone; hereinafter “philophones”), with the method of injecting the meconcule into the Defendant’s meconcule using the single meconcul
[Defendant/Defense Counsel] asserts that the facts charged are unspecified.
However, the facts charged are sufficient to state the facts constituting the constituent elements to the extent that they can be identified from other facts, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate general facts in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant's right to defense against them
shall not be deemed to exist.
In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the prosecutor stated the date and time of the crime in accordance with the evidence at the time of the prosecution, including the defendant's statement about the place of residence or visit after the scopon administered the scopon administered, the time and time of the crime within the period from April 8, 2016 to April 15, 2016, and specifically identified the place as "Scopon" as possible. Furthermore, even though the defendant recognized the fact that the scopon was administered within his body, the above copon was generated by the scopon operated on April 14, 2016, which corresponds to the period stated in the above date and time of the crime, and the fact that the scopon was proved to the effect that the copon was known about the administration since the scopon was done on the scopon operated by the defendant who was the defendant.
The details of the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant’s seal.